I'm in for a lunch break. I'm only addressing my own general viewpoints here.

The ever increasing problems of: infidelity, adultery, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, unwed teen moms, STDs and unhappy relationships often stems from a lack of personal responsibility.

Starting with the hippies in the 1960s and then into the 1970s an attitude developed in America 'if it feels good do it'. Now several generations latter the idea of 'get what you need and screw other people' has become not only common place but revered as some form of strength and self gratification has becoming the norm.

While treating people like you would want to be treated yourself has become an old fashion and out dated idea. And from that selfish 'its all about me' attitude stems many of today's societal problems.

Being sexually repressed (ex. being conditioned to think that innate sexual desires are "sinful") isn't good for one's psychology, especially the male psychology since it raises cortisol and lowers testosterone.

I think modern industrialization places some of the blame on this.

By biology men are designed to have sexual "conquests", however in the modern industrialized world it becomes the "low-hanging fruit" and a substitute for real manly values.

Back in the pre-industrialization era men's distinct roles were more emphasized - but nowadays many guys can go their whole lives without ever being in a physical fight - and men's careers and jobs are shifting away from physical or "manly" work to more "androgenized" jobs (such as service industry jobs) which both sexes can do equally.

As a result, "sex" ends up becoming the low-hanging fruit and some men place too much emphasis on "sex" alone being their male identity, when in reality it was meant to be part of a triad (protection, procreation, provision), not the sole identifying characteristic of their manhood.

i've said this now, like, three times in this thread, and every time i say it, it gets ignored, but what the hell, i'll say it again:

no one is saying that you should go off and have sex with multiple partners with a total disregard for how your other partner(s) feel about it. the discussion has been, at least from me, about how having open sexual relationships is not immoral as long as you have the consent of the person you're in the committed relationship with. so, your "treat people like you want to be treated" and "it's all about me" thing don't hold up here - i'm agreeing that, yeah, you should treat people how you want to be treated, as the polygamy should be a mutually agreed upon situation. and that makes it all about you and all about the person you're with. which is perfectly fine.

I think some of those things are more of a problem than others.

For example if there was a metric to judge the actual quality of relationships other than just longevity or divorce rates I think that would better, since religious or social pressure can encourage people to stay in a bad relationship nominally if nothing else.

Even infidelity rates could be negatively effected due to this, if society or law makes it harder to officialize a divorce even when the relationship is "dead" in everything but name.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I think saying we're where we're at has something to do with the hippies is a short-sighted argument. All this stuff has been going on forever. The '60s and '70s just made people bring it more out in the open and deal with it or ignore it, which is their want.

The open attitude toward sexuality also coincided with the advent of the birth control pill.

A lot of the changes if not most occurred simply for practical reasons (ex. prior to birth control, and to women having jobs or means of supporting a kid other than the father's income - it was obviously a lot riskier to have recreational sex).

What exactly qualifies going "too far" though is a matter of contention.

I'd say that the media overly markets sex to young people, and the mass media makes it harder for parents to filter out what young teens are exposed to - and this could play a role in shaping their attitudes absent of any good role models.

As I said in my disclaimer my post was a general statement, it was not about you or anything you have posted. I didn't even read most of the post. That was my general view of things.

If you look at history, the generation that parented the baby boomers were the people who grew up in adverse hardships during the Great Depression and went off to sacrifice their lives in WWII (not all of them of course). This generation collectively referred to as the ' The Greatest Generation' (not my term, but Tom Brokaw's) went on to have an unprecedented number of births after WWII. In general these kids were raised with much higher standards of living and as often is the case their parents spoiled them giving their children opportunities that they themselves missed out on. As kids who had it much easier than their parents (not all of them of course), they had more personal time and so embraced the arts and social movements, hence all the significance change in the 1960s. This lead to a revolution of personal freedoms and so American society started placing a higher value on the freedoms of the individual. The problem with endorsing personal freedoms to far is it can lead to a lack of respect for others. By the 1970s and 1980s this 'me' generation continued to change the course of what is considered the norm.

(I'm of course talking in general figures and trends).

This is one of the negative effects of industrialization and does have some truth to it to an extent - after WWII the US had profited so much from the war that it became massively industrialized, however the negative effect is that many people become overly dependent on convenience and less on discipline.

Sure people were evolutionary designed to invent things, but they weren't designed to be "dependent" on modern conveniences.

But I'm definitely not of the opinion that the Puritanical attitudes held by the early New England colonists is the best alternative.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

You're reducing the entire cultural revolution against racism, sexism, unjust wars and political corruption to some spoiled kids? :)

Well me I'd say yes and no on that.

Some people were fighting against legitimate injustices such as the Jim Crow laws, and lives wasted in the Vietnam War.

But some were just protesting because the Beatles made it trendy to be all about "peace and love" - that's why most of the the hippy shtick of the 60s went the way of disco and you don't see it anywhere today outside of headshops.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

You're missing it again. I don't think the hippies have anything (or at most, very little) to do with "The ever increasing problems of: infidelity, adultery, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, unwed teen moms, STDs and unhappy relationships often stems from a lack of personal responsibility."

I agree with you on that - as I mentioned I think that if anything, industrialization contribute to problems for a variety of social factors. I don't think it's as simple as "people's attitude's changing" - I think that attitudes have changed in a lot of ways, but that attitudes changed in accordance with the environment, rather than vice versa.

Obesity for example is a problem caused by a lack of physical exercise combined with an abundance of cheap, unhealthy food - this is why the "poor" in industrialized nations like the US of A are the most obese, as oxymoronic as that might be anywhere else in the world.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I don't have a lot more to add to the discussion honestly. My point of asking the question where do you draw the line in the sand with your sexual relationships was to simply point out that most people do have boundaries. I think it is important to ask what informs those boundaries and why. Monogamy in our culture has become a punchline and I think if you look at the state of relationships in our culture it is not hard to draw the conclusion that we have become too promiscuous and it is effecting us.

That is not saying that if you don't practice monogamy or haven't in the past then all your relationships are doomed. Likewise those of us who still believe monogamy is practice don't want to ban sex, are not repressed, and are perfectly capable of having frank conversations with our children about sex.

I think in every area of life it is important to understand what best practices look like and question ourselves when we want to stray from those best practices. That never means straying is ultimate failure. However if we are striving for what is best for us and those around us it is always going to effect us more positively then negatively.

Mark mentioned personal responsibility. It seems to me that we have a major breakdown in our culture when it comes to that. Not only on this issue but many.

I think a problem is that you're equating "divorce rates" for example with a decline in personal responsibility.

But how is two people living together in a miserable relationship just for religious reasons showing "personal responsibility"? I've known plenty of people who've been married for a long time, but had terrible relationships with little love and lots of fighting; they might've just been staying together for religious reasons, or just "settling" due to the idea that even "a horrible relationship is better than none".

That's why I mentioned Saudi Arabia as an example, since arranged child marriages have a "much lower divorce rate" than Western marriages - but that doesn't mean that the dynamic of the relationship itself is ideal.

Back in past eras, it was a lot harder and less acceptable to get a divorce, and women had a lot less say in the act of marriage - so increased divorce rates may just as well be a backlash against forced, loveless, religious-motivated marriage as well as a decline in responsibility.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I can understand to a point what your saying, there is some real truth there. However, like with most things in human nature our culture has taken those truths and way over compensated. To the point where now people get divorced at the drop of a hat. Unhappy as you say has come to simply mean things aren't the way they were when I felt the most self-gratified and I am going to free myself to chase that fleeting feeling again.

So I agree that it is good that we live in a society where people do not have to stay in abusive relationships. The trade off is one I happily make but it is not without repercussions.

ok, what are you basing this on, out of curiosity? if you look at actual statistics on divorce, the biggest reasons people give for divorce are lack of commitment, excessive arguing, infidelity, marrying too young, unrealistic expectations, lack of equality, lack of preparation, and abuse. if you're going to make off the cuff claims about why the majority of divorces happen, at least back it up with something.

Do the bolded reasons sound like things that more then likely could be worked through to you? Cold hard facts are great but hard to come by when you are talking about very grey subject matter. How many divorced people do you know? How many have you talked to frankly about their divorce? Do you find any reasons not valid? Do you think people should go above and beyond to make their marriage work?

I haven't had to talk to a lot of divorced people to know that a whole lot of people come to a place of indifference and decide that is enough to move on.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

That list doesn't really tell us anything either way. Excessive arguing about what? How much is excessive to each person? What expectations were unrealistic, and why did they have them? Pretty much every reason for divorce you could, for whatever cultural reason you can think of, would fit within that list.

"Not valid" and "poor reasons" aren't quite the same thing.

For example someone choosing to ditch a friend just because they "voted for Obama" would be a poor reason.

How "valid" applies that there is an "obligation" to do "have friends" or "be in a relationship" to begin with. And that begs the question.

What goal are they trying to achieve by doing so? Pleasing God? Following the Bible?