"Open" relationships

Open Relationship.  Being in an official relationship with someone, but okaying it for both partners to have sex with other people, specifically for the purpose of sex, and nothing committal. 

Okay, or not okay?

IMO, I'd say definitely not okay.  Usually, this is a subject I don't touch, but earlier tonight a friend decided she'd announce to me that she okayed her fiance to have sex with other girls.

Wut.

  I personally find this to be disturbing.  To me, that kind of behavior, where one 'uses' other people simply for sex is something that, if you must do, you would do while single.  Why would you really want to have sex with other people if you already have someone to do it with?  I mean, here you have someone you love, who loves you back, but it's not enough, so you want to have non-committal sex with other girls just for the sake of having sex with them? What kind of thing does that fulfill anyways?  "Hm, I'm in a long-term relationship, and we practically live together.  I REALLY want to have sex...so I think I'll seek out girls I don't know very well to have sex instead of just asking my partner or fapping."

I truly do not understand the nature of people who choose to do it while single, let alone doing it while in an actual relationship.  When I was single, of course I felt the need for it sometimes, but that's what masturbation is for, isn't it?  I'm not the kind to have sex with random partners anyways; I hold myself in higher regard than to pass it out like carrot cakes to your new neighbors.  But especially being in a relationship now, I can't even fathom ever doing something like that, or worse, trying to normalize something so dysfunctional into a relationship.  It disgusts and disturbs me. 

So, opinions/debate, go.  I'm actually not sure of people's standpoints on it, honestly.  I mean, in my circle of friends, 99% of them probably have the same viewpoint as I do on it, but I can't base a public opinion on something biased like that :x  I'm curious to hear others thoughts and whatnot on it, though.

I agree that if you are with someone you should stick to that person in those matters.

But nowadays it's harder to stay with someone just because of love, people want more, and to be compatible in a lot of ways that are often unrealistic.

Some men and women want the freedom to have the sex with other people who are sexually compatible with them, while staying with someone who is romantically compatible with them.

In the end it just seems like being selfish, then again, I think it's hard not to be selfish in these times when it feels like people can be replaced so easily.

Reading your first post I think that you might be crushing debate before it starts, save for some very loud outspoken people that may wander by. The first post is long and filled with words like "disgusting" and "dysfunctional". If I was someone who was perhaps less sure of my opinions, I might feel too afraid to post lest I expose myself to being flamed. I'm sure you're not that kind of person, Omie- I only mean to tell you that your post is pretty aggressive if you're looking for balanced debate. Now, my opinion.


Open relationships are NOT for everyone. They're NOT for just anyone either. I can see an open relationship working between two people who are very strongly bonded emotionally, and that can respect and trust eachother's wishes. I've discussed this at length before, and what I came down to was a pretty loose and basic set of guidelines:

1. If your partner (wife, gf, bf, etc) says it's not cool, it isn't cool.

If your partner feels strongly enough to deny you when you've agreed to take a step in this direction, then you need to respect that. As I said, this sort of a relationship relies very, very heavily on trust. If you can't uphold that, you can't handle an open relationship and furthermore, your partner should probably be seeking 'true' love elsewhere.

2. Your partner needs to know this person.

You brought your significant other home to meet your mom and dad. So if you're married to them, or close, then you need to bring extra-marital (etc) partners home to meet your significant other. Open relationship means you can have more than one partner. It does NOT mean you need to just start grinding up on every floozy you run across. If your other can't know about this person, you don't need to be sleeping with them. An additional point on this:

3. Get the paperwork.

If you're going to sleep around with permission, your secondary partners need to be aware of the situation- no need to break someone else's heart because you can't tell them you're taken. Once you've gotten that discussed, the next step is to get some paperwork- recent paperwork- showing that your new partner has been tested. This needs to be shown to your other. Probably around about the same time you're dealing with step two if you can arrange it. Even if this new partner is 100% clean, though: CONDOM. Sex is one thing. Making a baby with someone else is -not- okay. At all.


There are several reasons for entering into an open relationship. Maybe it's a fetish. Some people are very aroused not just by the idea of having different partners, but multiple partners. Obviously one person can't be three persons, so at some point an additional party or several enters the equation.

Maybe sex just can't work between two given people- John Doe is permanently equipped with a catheter and is unable to function in that area, but his wife has needs. While she loves him very much, he respects that she needs to be pleased in a way he can't provide. (I'm aware there are other methods of people-pleasing.) So, trusting her, he allows an open relationship.

If you think long enough, you can find plenty of why- but you have to be a little more open-minded than usual, and account for some extra factors. A single partner relationship is the norm, and it works for most. But people aren't normal. People are odd and twisted creatures, the sum of all of the great and terrible things that life can drop on someone. Sometimes, normal just doesn't fit.


This is just off the top of my head, right now, and I'm sure there are other points I'm missing- so bring them up. As long as this forum can discuss the topic civilly, then I can represent the "for" side of things. : )

PS: Great topic idea! This ought to be plenty interesting.

I agree with Omie, but I'm curious.  I have had several friends who had open relationships.  I have never seen one last.  Usually after a time one or the other becomes jealous or feelings develop for one of the other people.  I'm curious if anyone else has seen an open relationship that is a lifetime commitment.  Now I realize those are rare indeed these days.  But, from my viewpoint, once you invite others into that relationship the chances that it will last go from slim to none.

Personally I can't say I'm able to really fathom, personally (personally = me involved), an open -marriage-. If it's a temp thing though, like most young boyfriend-girlfriend stuff, I saw plenty at college. But that's less "I love you" and more "I like you, maybe I'll love you later, and now we have sex a lot."

Oh, no no no, I wouldn't flame people.  x_x  I try to be nice most of the time, haha.  Sorry about that!  Admittedly, I was fresh out of the situation of 'discussing' that with said friend, so I might have been a bit brazen in my demeanor at the time.  I don't mean to be aggressive, really :s  But it did hit a very strangely sensitive string in me to hear her talk about that.  Omierage D:  But I promise I would not flame.

On to the topic... I can see why someone in a loving and trusting relationship would do that if the other somehow couldn't have sex, or what have you.  I do know of cases where it's allowed, if the couple can't have a baby but wants one, or something like that. However, it just seems so absurd to me to want it when you already have someone there who is capable.  Even if it's a fetish.

For an example, I might find the idea of a threesome pretty arousing.  Maybe I even fantasize about it during my special me-time.  But when I actually sit there and think about "What if I had that opportunity to actually do that irl?" I actually start to feel sick that I'd be sharing my body with someone I am not emotionally bonded with. Even if my lover was perfectly fine with it, I would feel unfaithful and dirty, and I frankly do not like the thought of other people besides him having that connection with me.  I mean, in all honesty, the things I fantasize about are pretty niche sometimes, and weird.  They might seem hot when I'm fantasizing about them, but I honestly don't think I'd be into most of them in reality, if the opportunity came up.  They are what they are, fetishes.  Some fetishes should stay in your head.  I mean, if you have a fetish for guro, and you enacted something like that in reality, well....You'd become a very horrible criminal, go to prison for the rest of your life, and probably have some serious mental problems going on.  It's just...some things should stay a fantasy, you know?

I've never met anybody who was actually in an open relationship, since generally, they come from a type of people I try to avoid....  but the ones I do hear about (though rarely) seem extremely dysfunctional and unhealthy.  I seriously just cannot comprehend why a person would want such a thing when they have a good relationship with a capable partner.  :s  Especially one they're meant to marry.    It just seems counterproductive and destructive, especially if it's a one-sided thing in this case.  (the girl in question wouldn't do the same, and would have felt heartbroken if he went through with it.)  You can't gain good things from destructive behavior.  D:

I've seen two marriages fail.  One the man and woman both went into it with an open relationship. The other the open relationship part started after years of marriage when they were getting.. bored? stagnant?  I don't know.  Either way, they talked about it and decided they wanted it and their relationship could handle it since they loved each other.  Both of those marriages are now over.  I'm too possessive.  I could never share.  lol

If you're at the point where you're thinking about an open relationship, surprise! Your relationship is failing! To even have it enter your head that you'd want to be with other people is a sign that there's something seriously wrong. This is when the relationship begins to be doomed to fail, not when another person/people are introduced.

Other than that, open relationships strike me as incredibly greedy. I would never be in one, because a relationship should be just that: a relationship. Not a fuck buddy. Whatever happens, I wish your friend luck, because as usual, sumone gunna get hurt.

To be perfectly honest, I agree with Holk. I cannot see why you would want to be with several partners unless it was purely sexual (in which case you should tell your partner they aren't doing it for you and that is why you want it) or you were just plain greedy. If your partner is starting to bore you, leave them, dont ask for an open realtionship just because you want to keep fucking them. That just isn't healthy...

If they both agree that it's ok, then it's ok.
As long as all parties agree.

Well, yeah, if you don't want intimacy.

I wouldn't be surprised if these open people are trying everything they can to find real intimacy, somehow thinking that sex=intimacy, and that through the crude expident of sheer volume they'll find it. I guarantee they won't.

Look, man, I am FOR having as much sex as you can get, but you have to know that shit may happen. In this case shit is at best getting your poor little feelings hurt and at worst VD or fertilization.

This isn't really a debate, is it. o_o

Nnnnnnnope.

I'm really not sure what the aversion is.  I wouldn't do it, but that's because I'm not interested in an open relationship.  But if everyone involved agrees that it's fine, why is it so objectionable?

I think it's relatively biased and unfair to assert one's definition of what is 'right' or 'intimate' onto someone else's relationship.  Or are we going to have a topic next about how homosexuals are just trying to have as much sex as possible and are turning to the same sex due to lack of options in their search for real intimacy?

May seem extreme, but it looks the same from my perspective.

Not at all. I don't recall reading or posting anything like that about homosexuals, for one thing. For another, I never said not having intimacy was wrong- any relationship expert will tell you it's an important component of a long term relationship, that's all.

As far as objectionable is concerned, I just said it was counter-productive to finding stability with another person. I feel that there cannot be the level of trust that intimacy demands in a relationship where you never know when your other will go out and nail someone else. Intimacy can exist even in threesome or greater situations, I suppose, as long as it's a closed relationship.

tl;dr: I feel that intimacy can only exist in an exclusive relationship, and looking for it elsewhere is plain silly.

I agree with Nam. It's a lifestyle choice, and people shouldn't be bashed for it. I probably wouldn't personally be interested in such a lifestyle, but what people do consentingly in their private time is no one else's business.

Not at all. I don't recall reading or posting anything like that about homosexuals, for one thing. For another, I never said not having intimacy was wrong- any relationship expert will tell you it's an important component of a long term relationship, that's all.

As far as objectionable is concerned, I just said it was counter-productive to finding stability with another person. I feel that there cannot be the level of trust that intimacy demands in a relationship where you never know when your other will go out and nail someone else. Intimacy can exist even in threesome or greater situations, I suppose, as long as it's a closed relationship.

tl;dr: I feel that intimacy can only exist in an exclusive relationship, and looking for it elsewhere is plain silly.

Reread what I said, I was comparing people who condemn homosexual relationships for being unhealthy or silly in comparison to 'standard' relationships, and people who condemn polygamous or "open" relationships to 'standard' monogamous or "closed" relationships.  It's condemning a lifestyle choice because you disagree with it.

This is what I feel is wrong.

Acolyte gets what I was saying.

First off: I thank you all not for doing what some people do in these debates, and attack posters directly. That's what usually happens and I'm happy I'm not seeing it here. You've stuck to making your own points and stating your own opinions, rather than deriding someone else's. It's the number one reason I typically ignore this forum completely.

NAM: I also get what you were saying. Just replace "open" relationship with "gay". Is it the subject at hand, no, but the same mental concept is being applied. I do not understand, I do not personally believe it can work, therefore, I revile it.

Now, I am NOT saying any of you actually feel that way. I would not presume for an instant. But if you were a stranger, reading the very, very large amount of openly dismissive statements in this topic, then I believe you might find yourself feeling uncomfortable. This is the point I made in my first post, trying to prevent it from happening. This isn't a debate, but it is about as close as people typing at a keyboard can get to a mob.

This being said, I invite everyone to try to take this in a new direction- in an attempt to refresh the topic, and stimulate actual debate.

Imagine things as if you were in a classroom debate. The point of taking a side is not to advance your own opinions, but rather to argue whatever side you are given as strongly as possible.

So if you were in a classroom debate, and you had to argue for the side AGAINST what you actually believe, what might you consider to be adequate reasoning or atmosphere for an open relationship?

I'm not condemning it as much as I am saying that it never works, and someone will inevitably get hurt.

Keep a homosexuality argument to another thread if it's going to turn into a chemical fire topic. You have the right to argue and draw in from other sources, but don't start being embitter over topics that aren't as related as you'd think.

The bigger question is, when did morals become a reasonable backing for any debate. If it's not for you then it's not for you, but a relationship (the whole girlfriend/boyfriend, wife/husband thing mind you, not a monogamous intimate relationship) is a concept invented in our heads. Each and every single one has different boundaries and terms that describe it. If there was shown to be evidence that open relationships were counter-productive to advancement of human society or evolution (it's the contrary if anything) then it might be considered truthfully wrong. But since there is no such evidence, this thread is just people arguing over opinions and not debate at all. (Then again this board is called 'Elitist Debate' which pretty much sums that up.)

But since we're sharing opinions I will say that a life-long open relationship might work if it weren't constantly open and periods of time were dedicated to being with others. Like breaks and such

Edit: Also I only read the first 3 posts, so if any of this has been previously stated. Poop on me.

+1 agree to sword.

Keep a homosexuality argument to another thread if it's going to turn into a chemical fire topic. You have the right to argue and draw in from other sources, but don't start being embitter over topics that aren't as related as you'd think.

It was meant as a parallel to make a point, rather than invite discussion on the subject thereof.

Yes- that said, I think the point's been made, so I personally do not believe anyone will prolong it.

I also strongly agree with sword.

I'm not condemning it as much as I am saying that it never works, and someone will inevitably get hurt.

What he said.

I had a threesome once when I was dating an ex. Now I'm dating the other dude. Bringing another person into the relationship obviously didn't benefit my ex.

I think some people can do open relationships, but most of us are biased towards monogamy. It's all about levels of comfort and lifestyle choices etc etc EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY MADE THE GOOD POINTS. But I mean, I definitely don't think it's "disgusting" etc etc especially if it's a mutual agreement between partners. Sometimes it could indicate the decay of a relationship, but for others it might kind of be BAU?

Elitist Agreement.

While I see your point, I am inclined to point out that it seems none of us can identify an instance where it actually works.  :s  Hence my original point, that it seems to be more destructive than constructive and beneficial.  The way I see it, it's fine to eyeball other people. "Oh she has a hot ass!" "What I'd DO with the pecs on him~!"  stuff like that.... but when you get to the point of actually craving to be with those people as opposed to who you're with, something is just wrong.  :s 

It's not so much about morals as it is end results.  Does it create something positive, or does it destroy something positive? 

Actually, I have seen some open relationships that have worked. One couple I've met in Chicago has been married for some 30 years, and been in an open relationship for more than half of that. But, they're still very loving for each other, and most certainly not in a failing relationship. The key is that love is not lust, you don't need sex to be in love or to be in love to have sex. You could be physically unable to have sex, yet still hold a love stronger than imaginable.

It's entirely possible for people to truly love someone (or even multiple people, in the case of polygamists) while still having sexual encounters with others. In fact, in some cases it might even help a relationship between two people, helping them to better see or enjoy what they love about their lover. It all just depends on their mentality and their own sets of morals and definitions. To someone who isn't okay with it, having sex with someone other than your lover might be unhealthy, unstable, or just plain taboo, but perhaps to someone else, sex with someone who's only a friend be just the same as playing a simple game of Monopoly with them. I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but the point is that it's different for each of us, so whether it's right or wrong, whether it's "okay" or not, is pretty much up to only the people directly involved and no one else. We shouldn't force our thoughts onto them.

However, I believe there are instances where it's not okay regardless of the individuals stance on it. Mostly, if one or more of the people involved is being hurt by it or can't handle the complexities that come with everything. An open relationship can be a heavy strain for most people because of the fears and self-doubts caused by their lover enjoying the company of others like that, not to mention the immense level of trust required for it. It is hell to go through with that, feeling like you're not good enough for them or being afraid that they may leave you someday if one of their other sex partners is better than you in more than just sexual ways, not to mention also having to deal with what people think of you and other social issues.

Unless both people they are perfectly confident in themselves and their lover, it's going to have a heavy toll on someone and just not going to work out right. Most of us are only human and can't handle that. So, regardless of whether or not such a person agrees to have an open relationship, it's just not right to hold one and put them through that.



tl;dr - It's not a sign of a failed relationship, but it simply isn't for most people.

While I see your point, I am inclined to point out that it seems none of us can identify an instance where it actually works.  :s  Hence my original point, that it seems to be more destructive than constructive and beneficial.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Ahhhhhhh there we go, evidence. Thanks Zylos.

I think some people in a monogamous relationship find it somewhat disconcerting sometimes to know that there are people who are together who still get pleasure from someone not involved in the relationship?

I don't think Zylos posted proof anymore than we posted proof that it didn't work.  Although it was nice to see a story where it did work, because I was honestly curious about that one.

I suppose my posts weren't very Elitist Debate, more Jules Opinion.  I wasn't saying I was wholly against it and people shouldn't do it either.  I was saying that, in my experience, it doesn't work.  Also that for me personally, it never would, I am not programed to share. xD 


Edit: If I sound offended or bitchy, forgive me, I'm exhausted, little sleep, lotta work.

Makes plenty of sense to me, Jules.

Personally I feel we should never limit outselves in life by anything so trivial as being in a relationship or such. I can see why relationships exist, and I understand that love is a special thing, but I also feel that we should be (and are) able to love more than one person. But then, and I don't mean any offence by this, you wouldn't be able to see that because you aren't someone who would have an open relationship - such a relationship can only exist between two willing partners. Everybody is different and just as people should be able to love two people, they should also be able to insist on only one just the same.

Why are we still going on about this?

I must be Frank, I did not understand much of what you are say, but it seams to me atleast, that all of these people, having this 'discusion' are too much flowing with hormones to be even talking about such things. If you understand what i am saying, young friends.

[I gathered necro posting isn't as frowned upon in this section, but I'll apologise in advance just in case lol]

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

There really is no set way a relationship should be, there is no right way. To claim there is is very ignorant especially if it's a opinion based on your own feelings and you've done little to no research at all.

Also, why should it matter if these relationships fail or not? It's a freedom of choice that humans should definitely have. Not to mention I've seen no evidence that most of them fail, I have however seen evidence of the opposite.

I recommend watching Penn and Tellers Bullshit! the episode on family values. They look at both sides of the argument.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

I'm a have to call bullshit. Ducks, you know those duck things - quack - they mate for life. And they have for thousands of years. Ergo it's natural - no human intervention.
So, in a way being with one partner for your life is natural, I'm not quite sure if that's the case in humans though. We must've had the idea from somewhere!

In the end you have to ask what the importance of a relationship is
If it's to make a kid, stay with that one person
If it's to relieve an urge, open relationships would make sense

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

I'm a have to call bullshit. Ducks, you know those duck things - quack - they mate for life. And they have for thousands of years. Ergo it's natural - no human intervention.
So, in a way being with one partner for your life is natural, I'm not quite sure if that's the case in humans though. We must've had the idea from somewhere!

Well, we're mammals and ducks aren't, we evolved along a different chain of evolution. And sure some animals do it, but way more animals don't. I may have exaggerated saying it was unnatural completely, but it is rare amongst animals. I was just making the point that having more than one partner wasn't unnatural and probably more natural than otherwise. There's a reason men (and women) cheat so much, and that's because we didn't evolve to stick with one person. The only reason most of us do is because we've fallen under the belief that it is the correct way things are done.

And if I had to take a guess, we got this idea from religion most likely. I don't know if that's true though lol

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Yea, I mean recent in evolution. So yes, before recorded history.

And even if we take into account humans evolved to be able to rationalise and think, that still doesn't explain why open relationships are wrong. Oh, and IN recorded history open relationships were accepted in many cultures.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Yea, I mean recent in evolution. So yes, before recorded history.

And even if we take into account humans evolved to be able to rationalise and think, that still doesn't explain why open relationships are wrong. Oh, and IN recorded history open relationships were accepted in many cultures.

You could also argue that clothing is unnatural, or bathing, or any other thing that's been around since the babylonians, but it wouldn't be a good argument. You can't argue that something is right because it was done a long time ago.  Slavery was accepted up until a time that you could actually call recent, as well as a whole myriad of other bad things. I think a person should have a right to choose what kind of relationship they want to be in, but I think that one person should really be enough. It just seems selfish to me.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Yea, I mean recent in evolution. So yes, before recorded history.

And even if we take into account humans evolved to be able to rationalise and think, that still doesn't explain why open relationships are wrong. Oh, and IN recorded history open relationships were accepted in many cultures.

You could also argue that clothing is unnatural, or bathing, or any other thing that's been around since the babylonians, but it wouldn't be a good argument. You can't argue that something is right because it was done a long time ago.  Slavery was accepted up until a time that you could actually call recent, as well as a whole myriad of other bad things. I think a person should have a right to choose what kind of relationship they want to be in, but I think that one person should really be enough. It just seems selfish to me.

Surely keeping someone to yourself is more selfish? lol

And I already said that I was wrong in saying it was unnatural. And I wasn't saying it was a good argument, I was pointing out that the argument that polygamy is unnatural is a bad one because the same can be said about monogamy as well.

Also different things require different types of evidence, for example slavery is not an act of free will while open relationships IS an act of free will. Saying that something that could prove an act of free will is fine would also prove an act against free will fine is ridiculous. Yes, both occurred during our history but with a little research you can clearly see which one had negative effects and which didn't. [I realised you didn't actually fully claim that while re-reading, sorry lol]

Anyway, my stance on it is that open relationships are completely fine if all involved are happy and consented to it. There's really nothing wrong with it otherthan peoples biased opinions towards it.

I should also note, I'd never take part in a open relationship and the reason actually is because I'm selfish and wouldn't want my partner with someone else. But I'm not going to judge something else as wrong or disgusting just because I wouldn't do it myself. There's better ways of looking at the world than just going by how you 'feel' about it.

I don't really care if it's 'natural' or not, but open relationships aren't widely socially acceptable. So, it's just up to the people in the relationship to determine what type of relationship they have and if they openly share that they're in an open relationship. I imagine being open and speaking out or talking copiously about their relationship runs the risk of having a lot of people looking down on them or shunned in some way or another.

As a random side-note, my point is partially directed towards:

You could also argue that clothing is unnatural, or bathing.

Clothing is basically unnatural. Not wearing any though obviously isn't widely accepted. It's useful to have, just saying. I'm also not a nudist - please, keep wearing clothes. Bathing is natural based on every animal ever does this in some form or another.

I don't agree with open relationships only because I'm a jealous fuck and I'd just end up getting jealous and mad thinking there's more to it than just the sex my partner has with the person, and would end up sabotaging my relationship. But that's just me.

plus I like to keep my partner to myself, because they're special to me. they're my partner for a reason.

if my girlfriend asked me to agree to an open relationship I'm not sure what I'd respond with.

If you truly loved someone, why would you need anyone else?

Because love is a cheap trick played by nature to ensure reproduction, it's not the perfect emotion people want to believe it is. But I guess that's a whole other debate that would be off topic here lol

I thought lust was a cheap trick played by nature to ensure reproduction lol
I think with evolution love was created to increase safety of the newborn, just like how marsupials are considered "obsolete" compared to the placental mammals because they provide more security since the baby is in their body.

Tbh, I wonder if love really exists and if it isn't just combination of lust, desire and just getting along well lol

Because love is a cheap trick played by nature to ensure reproduction, it's not the perfect emotion people want to believe it is. But I guess that's a whole other debate that would be off topic here lol

Uh, so, you don't love any of your family members? Or friends? Love isn't just about reproduction. .-.
And it is pretty much the best thing ever when you find someone you really care about.

what do u mean someone?
http://youtu.be/6CPwOOK4nEM

Tbh, I wonder if love really exists and if it isn't just combination of lust, desire and just getting along well lol

That's a load of bullshit. lol.

Oh you guys, still trying to put standards on social interactions. Let's argue over how many best friends someone should have too.

Because love is a cheap trick played by nature to ensure reproduction, it's not the perfect emotion people want to believe it is. But I guess that's a whole other debate that would be off topic here lol

I've come to believe love is different for everyone else. Everyone has their own definition of it. For me, love is a colossal amount of affection and attachment for someone. Which I've been through times before, and am currently in right now.

New poster posts first and probably only posts in section where impostured posts are posthumously posted post-departure.

Holk tries to be funny and ends up sounding like a horrible pilot for a british sitcom.

Spoiler for:

Joking bro I love you ;__;
Let's be in a polygamous relationship together

Having failed to understand Holk's post, I'm going to clear something up with this Laguna fellow.
Here's something for you: humans have one of the largest times spent in childhood in the entire animal kingdom. That's because we have to be brought up gradually to be able to use our dang fantastic comparatively massive brains. We are born weak and fragile and fucking stupid, and we are raised over years to become barely independent beings that thrive because of our interaction and close ties with others.
Why does this relate to what we're talking about? Well, who's going to raise this idiot for the 20 or so years they need to be raised for? The mother's not going to be able to handle such a ridiculous task coupled with her life and other children. Who else does this baby belong to? It's fucking dad. Yeah.
So humans stayed in couples for the children, and learned that it made a social connection that evolved into the emotion we know as love, and groups that we now call families. A perfectly logical evolutionary reason for why people should stay together.
Now, the polygamy thing is a little different. Think about this; back in days when there were NO contraceptives, polygamy (or, fucking anything that gives you a look as animals know it as, and our ancestors knew it as) meant lots of babies. Mothers had to raise these things as their brains got bigger and because of this brain thing it took a lot of time and effort. So the child's father was inevitable brought into the mix. If the father kept making babies and then have to help raise them, he realized that maybe he'd be better off being with one female.
Another evolutionary reason for monogamy, right there.
So, if the father make lots of babies and the mothers couldn't handle raising them to their full capacity, we wouldn't have been nurtured to the point where we needed to be, and in turn we wouldn't have our super-brains and consequently would not have conquered the planet. The fucking duck or something would've taken over.

Where are his computers?

Monogamy's got the entire history of civilization as its score; what's yours?

Spoiler for:

It takes a village to raise a child.

Not entirely true. During the age of the Homo habilis, they still had the largest brains but merely acted out of instinct and not reason despite even then being the dominant species. You know what a species does that acts out of instinct? They fuck. A lot.

Actually it's more the evolution of society that brought on this 'necessity' since parents not only have to raise the kid alone but they have to provide all the resources for it to live. Which is only the case in humans. [Probably wrong with that last line, but it's true of other apes]

With other primeapes, especially Bonobos, they like sex and they fuck around alot. Yet, none of the children are neglected because the whole group raise the kids as one. This isn't just primeapes either, they are just the closest to us in the sense of evolution. So since this is a more effective method imo of raising children, how did we get to the point where the human mother had no choice but to be self reliant and take care of her child alone?

responsibility is sooo last century :O

@Scalinger - Shut up.
@Laguna - Western society evolved in such a way that people wanted others to share what they wanted so they could take it, but didn't share what they wanted so they wouldn't lose it.
As such, raising a child is the burden of its parents or whoever is crazy enough to help, and fun things like tax are the responsibility of everyone.

The rule I use in these situations is "never take a post about love seriously from a person with an anime avatar, since it's most likely skewed it some way".

Which is why I won't say anything else.

Never take a post about love seriously from anyone on the internet, ever.

That too.

Never take a post about love seriously from anyone on the internet, ever.

I thought what we had was true

Don't worry Sword, everyone loves you.

Never take a post about love seriously from anyone on the internet, ever.

Really, we'll always love you with all over our hearts.

Never take a post about love seriously from anyone on the internet, ever.

The rule I use in these situations is "never take a post about love seriously from a person with an anime avatar, since it's most likely skewed it some way".

Which is why I won't say anything else.

:justrealizedtezstillhasconananimeavatar:

Everyone stop using the internet, it's unnatural.

INTERNETS.