Having multiple sex partners. Level of right or wrong

Is this really such a big deal? I thought one-night stands were totally fine. I was always under the impression it was better to sleep around some to broaden your horizons and get experience until you settled down. It's like how people say you usually never get married to your first bf/gf--you want to experience and get a better understanding of relationships to prepare yourself.

It's documented that subjects with more partners before marriage have unstable marriages. Your claim seems to be "I had all I could eat, time to settle down" while the actual outcome seems "I went from partner to partner for years, meh to settling down".

I didn't say "have one-night stands every night", I said "sleep around some". This can include relationships. I just mean I don't see a problem with having some one-night stands interspersed with your relationships until you find your partner for life (if you ever do/want that). I'm pretty sure this is a thing people do...you know, go out and try to get laid? And it's a pretty common thing?

So is divorce.

Okay, cool story. Except divorce can happen based on a number of factors. Here's a random study showing a number of factors that can affect divorce.

And I looked up a study on "unstable marriages" based on previous sexual partners and found this which may or may not be what you meant, but many of the researchers say take it with a grain of salt and that the findings may be inaccurate.

I take issue with this because you're WAY oversimplifying the reasons behind unstable marriages. Thisshows that there are way more factors than just previous partners. Economics, previous cohabitation, education, age, religion, etc, all play a roll in your relationship.

But if you want to know the real reason behind all the facts that add up, it's real simple. Marriage is an outdated social construct. Oh the controversy that I'll have started with this statement. Very few people get married because they genuinely want to, they get married for government benefits and spousal benefits that come from employment.

If marriage didn't mean anything to the government, or to religious groups, people wouldn't even bother to do it. If people never bothered to as "so when are you getting married", if there wasn't pressure because your parents got married and had kids, or people keep asking if you're going to be a family, people just wouldn't care.

All marriage is, is a superficial title on a piece of paper. Gays have been denied marriage for thousands of years, yet historically when you look at homosexual relationships that are noted from time of the greeks/romans, all the way to today, you see that they while still having multiple partners at times, have a tradition of the longest relationships of any humans.

The reason those marriages never work out is because people make choices, if they wanted it to work, it would work but they don't. This has nothing to do with how many partners you have, and everything to do with your choices in life.

Well, it is mainly because people sucks on average... it is hard to share a life with someone else when you suck as person and the other also sucks as well. On the past people was just forced to stay together for survival and practical reasons, but today, we have divorce, and not just that, but divorce for many decades already, thus the tradition around it also died already. Only the real marriages exist now for good. Technology has allowed that marriage is no longer required for survival and practical effects.

As for people with multiple sex partners and marriage. Well, it is actually right that those with a vast sexual experiences are more lenient to marry in the first place. The idea just looks meh and the concept does not fit the style of life that a lot of em' actually wants. Also the added experiences makes you know already that people sucks, so you are more nitpicky with your partners and also you expect more of them as you nitpicked em'. And yeah, that group is also various time more lenient to have children even in marriage (because they prioritize personal enjoyment time, with a weakened family concept), with in some countries fertility rates as low as 0.70.

And so what? I know for a country-wise scope it actually sucks to lose population each year, but we're living on overpopulation in a global-scope and that won't change for at least all the remaining century. Natality rates also can and do increase when sexism is fight back and new social structures are created, so the drop wouldn't be race killing if we do our politics in the correct way.

Also, variety rulz, I'm all for people like that and people like me to co-exist, that makes life more beautiful.

Aren't you the one oversimplifying marriage by painting in such broad strokes?

Previous partners do matter concerning loyalty to current partners, and the other points brought up in the paper only help the point. No one said it's the only factor, but the other factors do tie in well with it.

Also marriage or unions aren't really things that exist in a bubble. It's something that's always followed social trends, constantly changing, never really belonging to one institution or social group. It's disingenuous to call it an "outdated concept", might as well call bartering and trading an outdated concept.
There is an undeniable aspect of their being benefits to marriage but those benefits take form in many ways, not just govt benefits. Historically despite marriage being done for different reasons in the past among different groups, security has always been a constant factor for marriage. Marriage is obviously not a perfect institution, as Paracelsus said earlier in some countries paternaty test are illegal in some countries, but there has definitely been a change regarding social and legal attitudes regarding marriage. Prenups exist, laws punishing people for forcing their spouses to do something they don't want to do exist.

Also choices are affected by past choices, you can't say that one person's sexual history doesn't affect their attitudes towards current and future partners.



Evolutionary psychology would suggest that we willingly choose monogamy if not we're biologically inclined to favor it for various reasons. Sex plays more roles than propagation. Humans have other needs that they need or want to fulfill before making babies.

I was making some very broad generalisations about marriage. But to get to the core, marriage is an institution invented by religion. There is no historical links to marriage and the pre-religious civilizations of our ancestors. There are no cave drawing of weddings, which I would think would be highly important if the benefits were as they say.

Bartering and trade did become an outdated concept, which is why we as a species invented currency. As a form of evolution from a former system that was not beneficial to some members of our society, like those who live in cities.

Of most ideas of benefits marriage can have, security is not one that comes to my mind. Most domestic violence happens in relationships after marriage. I also don't like the idea that marriage is an institute for security because it claims that one member of the relationship requires the protective services of another. Maybe if this was an active warzone, or there was threat of violence every day, this might be a benefit but as I see it now, all it claims is that, the one person who needs protection is weak. And as much as I hate saying the word, that in itself is sexist.

In our current society, outside of government and employment benefits, the positives of marriage are not really there. Outside of doing it because it's tradition, or because it's commonplace in your religion, there's no difference between being common-law and married.

Marriage isn't necessary for anything, it doesn't prevent you from having kids, or having sex. It certainly doesn't prevent you from loving someone.

So if you want to get married as a form of love and a symbol of your love, by all means have at it. I won't stop you. But I don't think it's necessary. It's a choice, just like what I've been talking about this whole time. Past experiences like you mention of having multiple partners can change your perspective and affect your choice, but you can also not let it.

Hmm, It wasn't invented by a church. Public contracts existed since communication has. Exchanging currency for goods is still trading, and one can still barter since not all services and goods have definite prices.

I didn't say it was an institution for security but being marriage does secure certain rights. It is a big part of it though historically. Arrange marriages to ensure alliances and resources have always existed. An unwritten contract between couples existed in many cultures, usually in the form of gender roles, i.e man will provide the majority of resources needed to maintain household.

Also I never said marriage was a form of love. It can be on an individual basis. It's not an outdated process, you haven't proven why. Despite it constantly changing, it has always been a personal and sometimes social contract.

History of marriage

At least in our early understanding of what marriage is, this talks a lot about the Israelites, and even in the ancient greek portion, under our current laws which are biblical based on marriage, the contract between partners would not be considered a legal marriage. In our current society, unless marriage is performed by a recognized religion or government institute, a marriage is not considered legal, therefor it is not a marriage. It's undeniable at this point that marriage is little more than a social construct which differs wildly from culture to culture in what the parameters of marriage actually is.

My point, and the reason why it is an outdated system is because our laws, the ones we enjoy in first world nations are based on religious versions of marriage and people are granted certain rights based on that. Like if one partner passes away, the other partner is entitled to inheritance. Why do you think this is such a big deal for the gay community. The vast majority of them really don't care about marriage for any religious reasons. They are denied the benefits that are granted by the government because the idea of marriage is religious. This is exactly the reason that marriage is outdated. This is unless you're telling me that you don't think gay people should be allowed to marry to gain access to things like tax benefits, inheritance and job benefits like health care perks.