SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I don’t believe humans are "naturally" monogamous

I guess what I mean by that probably came more from the female perspective.
-most females report needing emotional connection to feel like having physical intimacy.
-we bare children and in the traditional sense have been conditioned to believe that you have them with a husband or at least a partner you intend to have for the long term.
-we are conditioned through the way when we’re parented that good girls don’t, and save it for marriage, and when it comes to peers we are shamed for being promiscuous where as boys tend to be hero’s.
- and when a female cheats they are more likely to be divorces than when a man does.

My husband has seen me with other people. I have seen him with other people. I ended that not because it bothered me to see him with others, it actually didn’t in the least. It bothered me to be with others. That’s why I feel that monogamy is more natural for me and probably a majority of women.

And what I didn’t say but had meant to is that in all reality, if you fully invest in your monogamous relationship, the rewards of that are far greater than what you could achieve otherwise.

As far as in cultures where multiple wives or polyamory is norm, the rewards can still be there because it’s simply more like a bigger family unit where a long term investment can occur as long as everyone is open, consenting, and no lies are occurring.

I guess what I mean by that probably came more from the female perspective.

It is natural because women invest way more into mating. Childbirth was a potential risk of death in human history. Bearing and nurturing children means your access to resources is both reduced while the need is increased.

Is vulnerability.

Monogamy secures you a partner that actually care for your wellbeing and for your offspring. One partner means less risk to get a sexual transmissible disease (killing millions in the past)

Female with monogamous tendencies survived better than promiscuous, so they passed on their genes.

But monogamy is natural for males too.

Yes we are more "predators" in the sense that even suboptimal females can be good for sex, is a way to pass on your genes, we do not risk pregnancy. But you do not stay with those. You want to stay with a partner who truly matters.

And when that's on the menu, you do not want to eat anything outside.

Again these traits were most successful because the committed couples lived longer (they still do today), were healthier (still valid today), had a more successful offspring (still verifiable today) so they have been selected for success.

The monogamous female does want a monogamous male.

The promiscuity is plan B for both. For men is obvious. For females was ensuring a backup in case the plan A failed or the plan A died. TO keep the offspring safe (of the plan A) they were ready to bounce to plan B if their partner died, so Plan B, C, D etc would take care of the offspring at the reward of having a female to reproduce (and they likely had a pull towards monogamy with her).

It is normal for guys to frack around until they commit to one. It is normal for girls to keep around male "friends" just in case.

When both find a stable relationship those behaviors are generally put aside. Unless in the cases of issues that we face here, promiscuity is forgotten until the union is stable, likely for the rest of the life (assuming no partner dies young).

If the couple was broken due to death or tragic incidents, then the surviving partner (male or female) returns to the backup behavior, isolation is not a good thing for human health and vitality.

But it will always try to secure another plan A, not indulge forever in the Plan B if the individual is healthy (emotionally mature).

So we have a bit of both, Promiscuity and monogamy, with the second being the most desirable for survival and thriving. We move through those stages, polygamy will always make you feel the need to pick one, is just too expensive to be sustainable as a relationship matrix.

Cheating in this scenario, simply brings the plan B before the plan A, breaks the plan A, betrayal reduces livelihood, life expectancy and survival chances.

That's why it is painful. For both, as the Wayward often realizes soon or later that they messed up plan A for plan B and now it's hard to get back there.

Is nt only females who care the most hiking, males care for it too, is just different approaches but we both crave the same.

[This message edited by BackfromtheStorm at 8:29 PM, Friday, February 20th]

Moral integrity. That is what keeps people on the right path.

I read an interview with the singer Joni Mitchell once and the following part stuck with me:

"I recently read an article in Esquire magazine called ‘The End of Sex,’ that said something that struck me as very true. It said: "If you want endless repetition, see a lot of different people. If you want infinite variety, stay with one." What happens when you date is you run all your best moves and tell all your best stories — and in a way, that routine is a method for falling in love with yourself over and over.
You can’t do that with a longtime mate because he knows all that old material. With a long relationship, things die then are rekindled, and that shared process of rebirth deepens the love. It’s hard work, though, and a lot of people run at the first sign of trouble. You’re with this person, and suddenly you look like an asshole to them or they look like an asshole to you — it’s unpleasant, but if you can get through it you get closer and you learn a way of loving that’s different from the neurotic love enshrined in movies. It’s warmer and has more padding to it."

I think what you lose by cheating is what you would otherwise gain from doing it right.

I've lost track of who made which points exactly (sorry!), but someone brought up serial monogamy. I think that one makes social and biological sense. People used to die younger - women during childbirth, men during wartime, everyone from disease, etc. - so it makes sense that we are capable of moving to another partner after a period of grief and healing. Monogamy in the animal kingdom exists on a wide spectrum (very few animals truly mate for life), so it's not surprising that some people will be more inclined toward it than others.

Multiple people have pointed out that the lying and sneaking around is always a problem, whether related to infidelity or something else. It's interesting then that social cost (in terms of status, reputation, and wealth) isn't very high for this either.

The point about how some people derive pleasure from lying and cheating because it's a power trip for them - oof! I didn't consider that. I think (I hope?!) they are outliers, the sociopaths of the world. People who don't even pretend to have morals or scruples are usually shunned by those around them. That's why many of them learn to fake it or their more worried about their public reputation than their actual behavior.

Marriage and the nuclear family structure haven't always existed, and I feel like overall, humanity is moving away from that again. There's less incentive to get married these days. I feel like younger generations are embracing polyamory as a lifestyle in rising numbers, and it will be interesting to see if that continues as they age, or if they'll settle down into a more traditional model of life.

I think my initial thoughts were more along the lines of, "What if we all entered a relationship expecting that one or both of us will want to stray at some point?" Would it be less painful when that day arrives? Would it be easier to avoid the lies and sneaking around? Is that where we're heading as we make divorce easier (or just avoid getting married)?

I think my initial thoughts were more along the lines of, "What if we all entered a relationship expecting that one or both of us will want to stray at some point?" Would it be less painful when that day arrives? Would it be easier to avoid the lies and sneaking around? Is that where we're heading as we make divorce easier (or just avoid getting married)?

Are you thinking about an affair yourself? Just wondering.

I personally would not enter into a relationship where that was an underlying consideration or possibility. I don't know how many people would. People used to marry with the expectations they would stay that way until one died. And that very often WAS a long time. Usually at least beyond youth. But the social conventions of staying faithful and the consequences of not being faithful were much higher then and people in general took their oaths and responsibilities much more seriously. As an old person myself now, I wouldn't want to be in a series of relationships when I was younger as I wouldn't have built anything with one person. Perhaps not even the stability of a home and family. These things take time, effort, money and investment in another person with the premise of stability and building a future together. One in which one or both of you will lose a job, lose a child, get sick, eventually die. The challenges of life. That's not really something you can safely create based on serial monogamy - and often those people end up cheating anyway and getting divorced. It's better that people try to live UP to something rather than down to something else that demands nothing but fulfilling carnal needs. I see no benefit in such a relationship and as I say, I wouldn't bother with it. It's too unstable and based on people's lowest urges.

[This message edited by BondJaneBond at 5:50 AM, Saturday, February 21st]

I think my initial thoughts were more along the lines of, "What if we all entered a relationship expecting that one or both of us will want to stray at some point?" Would it be less painful when that day arrives? Would it be easier to avoid the lies and sneaking around? Is that where we're heading as we make divorce easier (or just avoid getting married)?

No, it would not be less painful it would haunt you for life.

You are born alone and alone you will die.

Your Mom held your hand at dawn, your partner will hold it for the goodbye.

Being alone, truly alone, the abandonment, is THAT what makes you feel bad and betrayed when you are betrayed.

That is what is called in psychology "the attachment wound".

You are not Chosen. You are not Enough. You are Replaceable.

This entire discussion is an ode to this, a "what if we all become cheaters, would it hurt less if it's in the open, if there are no lies?".

We can polish it up, call it nicely "Polygamy" or "Serial Monogamy", but basically is the same thing.

You get with another person but do not "choose them" (only until it 'gets old'), because they are "not enough" to fulfill your needs (the void), so when you feel you extracted enough you "replace them".

Openly or not, is the same logic of cheating and attachment wound.
We are not talking about falling out of love, that's something normal, it can happen when dopamine fades or you have been truly wronged or lied to.
This is an attachment lifestyle, and a dysfunctional one at that.

Love and attraction is transactional and transitional because what I chase is the dopamine of novelty, when it runs out I want to feel it again to be happy.

Bar 4 girls in my life I was doing only that.

There is literally just about a dozen or so of girls, in my entire social circle (close but outside family and blood related) that I haven't slept with or had some other kind of sexual involvement. And I know a lot of people, a lot of girls.

One is a childhood friend, others are the girls (now wives) of my friends, the rest are the friends of my wife. And the only reason is because I can't see them as women, my childhood friend is like a sister, the others are an extension of the people I love.

We are speaking of your private social circle of course, not the transactional interactions you have with acquaintances like employees, business partners, coworkers, educators etc. although they have been slips in there too.

You know how it feels?

Fucking lonely.

It's the pain of emptiness and shallow connection. No matter how many people you share intimacy with, you never get truly intimate because you do not choose anybody. You don't choose yourself either, if you think about it.

Polygamy is self soothing for the issues you do not dare to resolve. They do not go away, no matter how many partners you hug in the dark, you do not connect enough to someone who could really heal your old wounds.

Calling it "serial monogamy", how does it work? Is there a time frame? Or is the same if I am with a single person a day, a week, a month, a year?

No, it's just polygamy with a coat of paint. It's transactional as we take the happy chemicals and then for the fear of vulnerability and attachment we move to the new "new thing" that seems fresh and different, but will be exactly the same, because you are not choosing to connect a discover another person in all her complexity, you are choosing the projection of your own issues into a different actor that will play the same role.

I did this shit exactly out of the same fear you expressed "I got to move on before I get hurt".

It does not work. Will you be lied and betrayed by her if you chase the dopamine and move on to a new partner? No, because you do not truly commit.

But matters very little since you have already betrayed yourself.

Is not a platitude, try reading into it, is the same dysfunctional background that a cheater experiences, minus the lies. It is a Fantasy, fantasies "look good", but reality will never match them, and you will be chasing ghosts.

"If you want endless repetition, see a lot of different people. If you want infinite variety, stay with one."

That's beautifully said, in a single sentence.

Exactly my experience.

"Variety" gets old pretty quick and becomes an endless repetition of your same patterns, your issues.

One person, it does not need to be "special" (fantasy projection) because deep down everyone it is already "special", if you are compatible and dive deep in the connection you will find out this is true.

When you click, you click. From then on you can discover each other.

And we here should know well that even you do not truly know all facets of yourself. Because you never stop growing, changing.

Is not a boring routine, if you connect truly, is a lifelong discovery and rediscovery of your partner.

No, we do not need to have "variety" to avoid the pain of lies and betrayal, it does not bring long term happiness, it brings the void we have inside that can never be filled.

We need attachment to fill the void, the connection with your partner that becomes an endless discovery if you can snap out of the fantasy mirage and really look to the person at your side.

[This message edited by BackfromtheStorm at 6:27 AM, Saturday, February 21st]

Depends on the society. In some societies, women are beheaded or killed with rocks if they cheat.

In others, they're actively incentivized to do so via mandatory, state-enforced continuing support, even after cheating on and divorcing their husbands.

In others,(Christian) men and women alike are instructed to be monogamous and faithful as a matter of morality before God.

In a much harsher survival environment, monogamy is far more stable, and a lack of integrity or reputation loss have serious, immediate repercussions. In more prosperous, easy (debauched) societies, women are apparently organizing themselves into harems around affluent, attractive men.

Naturally, we seem to have the instinctive understanding that children are best and most successfully raised in monogamous, stable households, surrounded by extended family. But we are social creatures, and seem to be easily swayed away from this instinct by a degenerative society which gives us "permission," incentives, and encouragement away from this norm.

[This message edited by Mindjob at 2:29 PM, Saturday, February 21st]

In a much harsher survival environment, monogamy is far more stable, and a lack of integrity or reputation loss have serious, immediate repercussions. In more prosperous, easy (debauched) societies, women are apparently organizing themselves into harems around affluent, attractive men.

Naturally, we seem to have the instinctive understanding that children are best and most successfully raised in monogamous, stable households, surrounded by extended family. But we are social creatures, and seem to be easily swayed away from this instinct by a degenerative society which gives us "permission," incentives, and encouragement away from this norm.

I get what you say, just pointing out the obvious, men plays into the same game too.

It is incentivized and encouraged by the "society" (really it isn't we talk about leadership and media here, society at large still harbor repulsion for doing bad to other people) under the guise of "liberation" (liberation from genuine human connection, the family, partnership. But not from The State, or the Establishment, because lonely people are pawns of these guys. Is a perpetration of the status quo when you set the mindset of the less affluent "competition" to fail).

In reality is mental slavery, preying on our lowest impulses, arising from insecurity and unresolved issues, guaranteeing the next generation will perpetuate or worsen the same insecurities and flaws that keep you easy to control.

If I tell you to stop getting shit drunk at parties because it's bad for you long term, you will resent me because I buzzkill your "fun". The bar who offers you free drinks if you gulp 5 in a row, is your best friend, it endorses your fun.

Now guess who is loving you more. But only one gives you a nice dopamine fix, that you desperately need to soothe your everyday sadness.

Such an interesting thread. This topic has been bandied about here and other places and times ad infinitum.

Reminds me of a lunch discusssion I had with a guy who was a serial philanderer. Our conversation drifted to social mores concerning marriage and monogomy versus all the other relationship constructs out there. He shocked me by vociferously arguing for the importance of committed monogomous relationships, the bonds of marriage and the nuclear family. He laughed at me when he saw my face and said, "I know, I know, rich coming from me, right?". I answered in the affirmative.

He then went on explain himself. He said that just because he had severe issues with entering into a committed monogomous relationship and marriage, it didnt preclude him from seeing and understanding the value of monogomy and and monogomous marriage to the individuals involved, resulting children from that union, extended family, social circles and society in general. He began to list societies that declined commensurately with their abandonment of that model and that this template had been the cornerstone for the success of many lasting cultures and nations. He again said that just because he had not been able to live to this ideal, didnt mean that he didnt value and admire it. Of course I agreed with his argument, sans his personal lifestyle.

As I understand this site, infidelity is defined as seeking intimacy outside of mutually agreed upon exclusivity within that relationship. Though a bit broad to me, I can hang with this and, from what Ive read here, the vast majority of relationships affected by infidelity have been self described as previously understood monogomous marital committments. I guess Id say that, though these committments had been adversely affected (to put it lightly) by exposed infidelity on one partners part, it in no way diminishes the importance or value of committed monogamy and of that committment further reinforced by marital vows/bonds.

I know this warning is late in the game, but from https://survivinginfidelity.com/forums/guidelines/:

GENERAL STATEMENTS: Please refrain from making statements that generalize gender, WS/OP/BS, race, religion or political alignment. Also do not presume to speak on behalf of other people.

That guideline has not been honored in some posts in this thread.

One conclusion I've drawn from life is that a generalization is useless if large numbers of people do not conform to it.

One can virtually always make one's point without over-generalizing.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 4:18 PM, Saturday, February 21st]

GENERAL STATEMENTS: Please refrain from making statements that generalize gender, WS/OP/BS, race, religion or political alignment. Also do not presume to speak on behalf of other people.

How about financial status / class?

The same reason people with empathy will never become billionaires

** Member to Member **

Musing, sharing....

The problem is that cheating, in general, often works in economics and power relationships. If one looks around, often one sees that concentrations of both wealth and power derive from some sort of exploitation of others, and often that results in/from a type of cheating..

IOW, society rewards those who manipulate other people in one way or another - cheaters. That's where the incentives go. There have been some cooperative efforts like communes, but they are vulnerable to cheaters ... just read Animal Farm for an example of that.

*****

After 80+ years of life, and after residence in a number of US and Asian locations, my observation is that some people accept monogamy, and others do not.

A standard example comes from voles - one subset appears to be monogamous; another subset is not.

During my adolescence, the boys I knew idealized - some even idolized - Hugh Hefner; I was not immune. We wanted the playboy lifestyle - multiple partners, low commitment, cars, hi-fis, jazz, etc., etc., etc. In college, we all tended to think we could have that sort of life.

It wasn't until I met W2b that I realized I I liked more focused relationships, and there simply wasn't enough time in the day to have multiple focused relationships. I was not happy with that realization. I thought I was supposed to be too cool to fall for a girl. In fact, for a while I dated other girls in the hope of making W2b less important to me.

I wasn't happy with myself, but I WAS happy being with W2b. I chose to maximize my happiness, and that meant monogamy. I found a very good partner who was also my limerent object, and I've stayed limerent. I can only imagine what would have happened if I hadn't stayed limerent. Having grown up thinking Hef led the best life, I certainly could have cheated.

So, since limerence fades for most people, I can understand an urge to cheat. Also, we are not that far from a time in which Ms were arranged, and Ds were hard to get. If I were shackled to a W I didn't like, I certainly could see myself cheating, and I'm not sure I'd condemn others who cheated.

*****

As for polygamy, I asked a Muslim woman in Malaysia about polygamy. She very cheerfully replied, 'Over my dead body.' She expected fidelity and monogamy. She was university-educated, she knew she could make a living without a husband. Someone is less comfortable economic circumstances, or more committed to the literal interpretation of religious texts, might accept being one of several Ws.

*****

How about financial status / class?

From sisoon, the mod:

IMO, an over-generalization is an over-generalization and therefore a violation of the guideline.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 5:45 PM, Saturday, February 21st]

From an evolutionary biologists perspective, humans are not inherently monogamous. It's more advantageous to spread yourself around, so to speak, especially for males. Females do have an innate need for stability. It doesn't necessarily need to come from a man.

When people lived in tribes or clans, monogamy wasn't really a thing. Some tribal cultures still live that way. People who know they are related by blood take care of each other. So, you all the mothers and their children taking care of everyone born from the mothers. Instead of husbands or partners, women and children have uncles, brothers, and cousins.

Once humans moved away from familial tribal societies, monogamy and marriage became more important for society. Fathers would take care of their children from their monogamous partner. That's why men get more of a pass for cheating than women.

Now, we've been conditioned over a thousand+ years to expect monogamy.

From an evolutionary biologists perspective, humans are not inherently monogamous. It's more advantageous to spread yourself around, so to speak, especially for males. Females do have an innate need for stability. It doesn't necessarily need to come from a man.

It is, STD killed millions, we are particularly sensitive compared to other species who are polygamous.
Monogamy ensured much lower risk for disease, higher success and survival of the offspring, longer lifespan for the partners, lower mortality overall.

Polygamy existed as a plan B, it was always this way. Today we have less risks than in prehistory or most of human history really, still a predictor of success for all members of the group.

Are you thinking about an affair yourself? Just wondering.

BondJaneBond, quite the opposite! I'm expecting to be single and celibate for whatever decades of life I have left (I'm 50ish). I have always been inclined to attach myself to someone. I hated dating (only dated two guys in my life, and the second one is stbx), and I was so relieved to settle down with someone. Trying to detach from stbx has been incredibly painful, and I can't imagine wanting to put myself through this again.

Hence the question, is there a social structure or set of expectations that would help all of us have less emotional trauma from intimate betrayal? But I think BackfromtheStorm addresses this pretty fairly by bringing up attachment wounds. I was recently reading a book ("The Grieving Brain") that talks about what neuroscience understands about attachment (not much, honestly) and what it means in the context of biology. The author describes loss and the subsequent grieving as the process of our brains rewiring so that they stop expecting the object of attachment to be present, communicative, and caring. That process is hard because we are truly creatures of habit when it comes to attachment.

There's not much explanation for why this process hurts, but I'd guess that its because it's a survival advantage for children to be securely attached to their caregivers, and the pain of separation/disapproval provides a disincentive for children to detach (and conversely, the joy of being close - physically and emotionally - provides incentive to remain attached).

I think the same thing happens in a long partnership as adults, romantic or otherwise, if it's a secure attachment. Infidelity breaks that attachment and causes the brain patterns to break, which hurts. The book also talks about how some people heal faster from loss than others, and some never really at all ("complex grief").

It's a general question about society, any answers will necessarily be general.

If the topic is allowed to remain open, the answers should be tolerated. Otherwise, the topic itself should just be closed.

(and conversely, the joy of being close - physically and emotionally - provides incentive to remain attached).

I think the same thing happens in a long partnership as adults, romantic or otherwise, if it's a secure attachment. Infidelity breaks that attachment and causes the brain patterns to break, which hurts. The book also talks about how some people heal faster from loss than others, and some never really at all ("complex grief").

You are correct, attachment styles play a big role into it. Secure attachment, Anxious Attachment, Dismissive-avoidant, Fearful- Avoidant etc.

Very likely you HAD healthy secure attachment that is critical for happiness, that's why the grief, complex trauma (often PTSD too, is that vital for human emotional stability).

Hence the question, is there a social structure or set of expectations that would help all of us have less emotional trauma from intimate betrayal?

Look at what is happening around us since we were kids (likely before I was even born) and you will see it is exactly there:

promoting selfishness and hedonistic emotional avoidance under the guise of "happiness and self-love".

It sounds so good right? An army of "experts", stars, regulators, cultural promotion across the media. If it is so widespread it must be right, is what you feel that is wrong correct?

After all if everyone believes the sun orbits the Earth then the Sun orbits the earth. Do not question, unless you are a fool that deserves to burn at the stake.

Chase the dopamine, take without giving and demand with entitlement, be dopamine driven, that's the key to happiness and success!

Or since I like to be a heretic that questions everything and I love the warmth of the fire at the stake especially in this cold Polish winters:

When you isolate people, take off stability from their lives, starve them emotionally, you will have million of broken individuals so easy to manipulate however you like.

Just need to give them few breadcrumbs to make them feel grateful.

Is the Pavlov's dog institutionalized.

Cultivate the narcissism (everyone has as a pinch of Narcissism, is healthy if is a recessive traits, is toxic if it's brought in front) and make it a desirable trait. Lead by examples, make sure the people get "that is the key for success".

You will soon have millions of insecure, depression leaning, frustrated and scared individuals that respond to the stimuli of your breadcrumbs subconsciously, get rewarded by dopamine highs, and get a bit more miserable at every repetition when that fades.

Basically you cultivate the very traits of low self worth, people pleasing that make a cheater lose their moral compass, under the guise of "success / socially desirable". Because the WS suffers and spirals down, the BS do too and you break secure attachment in these people, making them unstable. Nourish this, instead of red flagging those behaviors, and is like injecting free radicals into a stable compound, with dopamine as the temporary stabilizing agent to get the reactions you expect or desire.

And this is something I often found true: "It's much easier to screw someone, than to explain them they are being screwed"

So yes, that's the social mechanism you wonder about, right in action (since as far as I can remember). I learned it, you learned it, our Waywards learned it.

Are we less hurt and happy? Well, this forum exists for a reason.

And people I know who joined this circus of ours ( whether WS, BS or Madhatters) share this common feeling of being miserable.

I can observe women are just a bit more miserable than men, because men can generally compartmentalize and detach more easily emotionally, so they can focus on different "breadcrumbs" and just live with physicality with less risk of emotional attachments.

But everyone hurts.

In conclusion this system to reduce the pain "doesn't work". Or "works too well", depending if you believe the stated intent or see from a different angle.

I don't like it, so the way I am, Im not dancing to the song that doésn't click with me. But the dance floor is still full, so you have to keep it in mind.

BondJaneBond, quite the opposite! I'm expecting to be single and celibate for whatever decades of life I have left (I'm 50ish). I have always been inclined to attach myself to someone. I hated dating (only dated two guys in my life, and the second one is stbx), and I was so relieved to settle down with someone. Trying to detach from stbx has been incredibly painful, and I can't imagine wanting to put myself through this again.

I suck at pep talks so I am not going to give you one.

Age is "just a number" in the sense that gives you a rough indication of the number of days you have to live. And if you put them on paper, with averages, you will see that whether you are 20 or 50.... is not that many as you'd think or like to have.

In relationships reality is it does narrows down your options, especially about having children if you want some. That sucks and I understand it makes you anxious (factor that plays into the circus above).

That said, secure attachment is a deep need you feel.

That is still on the table for you, you believe it was taken away from you, but it was not, it was insulted and hurt, healing means you can heal that too.

Detaching from the things that are truly toxic is important, you break a self sabotaging pattern.

"Detaching" from the healthy things is a bad, bad thing, it is not detachment at all, is called "dissociation".

Your system right now hints to a belief that the next relationship will be exactly like your stbx, so it is terrified to put yourself through it. But that's not what has to happen. You are healing, now you are more mature and can spot red flags.

You will be instinctively more selective about the next partner you will attach too, you already changed the song you will be dancing too.

Now your unspoken fear, I will answer that too. "I am too old to be attractive".

Bullshit, telling it in French, you feel down and unattractive right now, I swear any woman can be attractive when she loves herself and takes care of herself is confident.

Are you as hot as when you were in your 20s? No, of course you past that. But the beauty of youth is just ONE factor playing into attraction.

It will likely restrict your dating pool on the youngest men available, and that's not an absolute either, I personally had experiences with women that were twice my age or more when I was in my 20s, and that blew my fucking mind, seriously what I learned about intimacy with women is more from these few "real women" than what I learned from girls my age.

I literally had a crush for those (one could have easily be my mother), and I was a model used to date models.

So you have a lot in your "arsenal" to offer to a partner, maturity and self consciousness. And to be frank you'd likely are not interested into dating 20 something boys, if not for a temporary fun (I was aware I was just "fun", too immature for those women), they are just too childish for your grown up needs.

So you are not competing with 20-30 something girls, you have options to meet and find a good partner that satisfies YOUR needs.

Someone that can give and receive at the same level you have to offer.

And you do deserve it.

Tell it yourself a couple of time a day. Heal the attachment wound. Come back to life and become the woman you were always meant to be.

I truly believe you deserve it because that's just the reality.

Now start to work in believing it yourself.

[This message edited by BackfromtheStorm at 8:47 AM, Sunday, February 22nd]

** Member to Member **

Evolutionary 'science' seems to be, IMO, a set of untestable hypotheses. Untestable means unprovable, yea or nay. The hypotheses may say something useful, or may not, but I don't see how we will ever know how close the hypotheses are to truth.

I understand the scientific method, but my history has been to use it to find things that work, for whatever reason, not to find answers that get us closer to truth.

Personally, I see the history over my lifetime as entry into the last stages of capitalism. We don't have to end up as Marx predicted and Adam Smith might have implied, but I think we're on our way. (Read this as economics, not politics.)

It's very difficult to grow up feeling good about oneself and others when the media constantly tell us we're OK only if we buy certain items, think certain thoughts, and consume certain drugs.

Or maybe we're just in the 400 years of destruction described in Hindu cosmology.... If so, we have only 200 years more to get through. (I got that number from Amitav Ghosh's Ibis trilogy.)

I don't believe that people behaved any "better" in the past than today when it comes to infidelity or monogamy. They either didn't talk about it as much or they dealt with it in various ways (including violence). We really don't know what family structures or village life was like in long ago times, well past the development of homo sapiens (just as smart and capable as we are today) but well before recorded history and lasting evidence.

BackfromtheStorm, I think you're right that we are built for attachment and that's a necessary and healthy part of being human. Along with it comes the pain of loss of that attachment, whether through death or abandonment. That said, I don't believe that romantic attachment is always necessary. I have an uncle whose wife died when both were in their late 50s. He's now in his late 70s and he has never remarried or even dated, and he's quite happy. I figure I can follow in his footsteps. You're incorrect that I'm feeling undesirable - I know my self worth. I'm past my childbearing years and I have a disability that requires me to rest a lot. The emotional stress of the past 5 years has not been good for me, and I'd rather have peace and stability going forward. I have lots of wonderful friends and family who love me, and whom I love in return, and I have my child. That's enough for me! I don't feel like getting back on the rollercoaster of romantic attachment, and I disagree that this kind of partnership is necessary.

Returning to the original topic, I think it's possible to talk about this subject with overly generalizing. Human beings come in great variety, and there are averages, but the spread is quite wide. I know several for whom polyamory seems to work really well. Others, like me, prefer monogamy and have never had a desire to step outside the primary relationship. Still others who have no romantic inclination and prefer to be single ... and everyone in between. Some probably shift between these different states of being within their adult lifetime.

Someone made the point about how social mores shift over time and that we need to respond to the values and behaviors of today. This is a good point. I'm thinking in forward terms - is there a healthier/alternative model to embrace going forward that would reduce the likelihood of infidelity and/or the pain that results from it?