Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've more or resigned myself to the idea that I'm probably going to die alone. Modern dating is pretty horrendous." Yep. It's a hideous experience. 🤓 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've more or resigned myself to the idea that I'm probably going to die alone. Modern dating is pretty horrendous." me to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Like I'm going to read all that cut and paste pish" Okay, go see if you can find it elsewhere online 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"to much for me to read, can't you tell us in short basic terms" Not exactly without adding some form of explanation to back this up 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Like I'm going to read all that cut and paste pish Okay, go see if you can find it elsewhere online 🤷♂️" Apologies. I'm not going to read all that pish 😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Age needs to be factored into to this, many of us on here are on 2/3/4/5th long term relationships and have had traumatic experiences in many of those relationship breakdowns, emotional baggage is one of the biggest hurdles for us on here, after attraction." That would involve emotional stability. I myself have had my fair share of toxic relationships and if I want to enter another relationship, I need to be emotionally stable and grounded, that requires doing my emotional labour and it would be wrong to rely on a relationship to "make me better" which puts the other person in greater position of responsibilitythat they themselves may not be prepared to do. My boundaries are important, and I need to uphold (not enforce) those boundaries to remain emotionally secure, however I do also need to be open to new opportunities as they arise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Like I'm going to read all that cut and paste pish Okay, go see if you can find it elsewhere online 🤷♂️ Apologies. I'm not going to read all that pish 😂" Then you do a disservice to yourself by refusing to be open to the possibility of learning something new, but that's your choice in the end 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've more or resigned myself to the idea that I'm probably going to die alone. Modern dating is pretty horrendous." It is, because much of society has become fractured and polarised due to a lack of understanding. To an extent mistakes need to be made to learn from them, but I've seen an awful lot of toxic dynamics develop in society that is causing these polarisations and conflicting group mentalities. Dating apps being a very destructive platform by influencing people into maximising mindsets, from both sides. And also helps facilitate adultery. There's an awful lot of people using them to hookup in secret away from their committed "monogamous" relationships | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand or wish to understand the dynamics of a car whenever I drive one so why would I need to understand social dynamics? I meet someone, we talk and we may or may not click. If I thought for a second that they were analysing that conversation or building a framework or ticking boxes, they wouldn't last too long." Again, everyone is different, you may not care, for others it's very important for them to understand. It also helps to understand all of this when it comes to raising our children and educating them on how the world runs in ways that will be easy for them to learn, so as they get older, they're better prepared, they'll still make mistakes along the way, but this framework gives people who face various problems have better understanding to work off and apply it to their lives depending on the various aspects where issues have arisen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand or wish to understand the dynamics of a car whenever I drive one so why would I need to understand social dynamics? I meet someone, we talk and we may or may not click. If I thought for a second that they were analysing that conversation or building a framework or ticking boxes, they wouldn't last too long. Again, everyone is different, you may not care, for others it's very important for them to understand. It also helps to understand all of this when it comes to raising our children and educating them on how the world runs in ways that will be easy for them to learn, so as they get older, they're better prepared, they'll still make mistakes along the way, but this framework gives people who face various problems have better understanding to work off and apply it to their lives depending on the various aspects where issues have arisen." We'll have to agree to disagree. I've already raised 3 children and they in turn are raising my grandkids but living a life based on a framework dictated by others seems a strange way to encourage anyone to grow and be themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting read, some very good point. I think (1) has a little whiff of heteronormativity in the application of theory. And it's something of an appeal to nature to indicate that biological explanations ought to be foundational. (2) Seems sound in many ways, but I find myself wondering how you define emotionally grounded. I personally find someone can be quite emotionally expressive and very grounded, and a healthy part of regulation and communication. Adverse experiences can lead people to deeper introspection and self-awareness, I have found, personally. There's also a cultural element to consider here, I think. The rest I find relatable, but I find diversity in beliefs and values can be very much additive to a relationship, it feels like there's an emphasis on similarity as the basis for compatibility to a certain degree. " 1: no it isn't solely based in heteronormativity. I've tried to avoid using gender specific examples to allow for this to apply to people who are gay, lesbian and trans. 2: what could determine someone being emotionally grounded, which ties in with emotional intelligence, is generally someone who is self-aware and introspective, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will never make mistakes, nobody is perfect, but they possess a level of emotional stability and intelligence that is more likely to lead to growth rather than destruction. It doesn't necessarily mean that a person cannot be emotionally expressive, they can be very expressive, as long as it is in a way that is more positive than negative. In terms of varying beliefs, that again requires the intellectual and emotional compatibility. It doesn't mean you both have to be Christian if you're religious, just open to acceptance of differences. I myself recently had someone interested in me who is Lebanese, from a Muslim background but not necessarily practicing Islam, never considered this for myself ever in my life but we certainly clicked in many ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand or wish to understand the dynamics of a car whenever I drive one so why would I need to understand social dynamics? I meet someone, we talk and we may or may not click. If I thought for a second that they were analysing that conversation or building a framework or ticking boxes, they wouldn't last too long. Again, everyone is different, you may not care, for others it's very important for them to understand. It also helps to understand all of this when it comes to raising our children and educating them on how the world runs in ways that will be easy for them to learn, so as they get older, they're better prepared, they'll still make mistakes along the way, but this framework gives people who face various problems have better understanding to work off and apply it to their lives depending on the various aspects where issues have arisen. We'll have to agree to disagree. I've already raised 3 children and they in turn are raising my grandkids but living a life based on a framework dictated by others seems a strange way to encourage anyone to grow and be themselves. " I wouldn't say this was a framework to be enforced, again I say these should be considered more than they probably deserve. In the end it's down to our choice. I myself have the choice to be with someone who doesn't match my energy intellectually speaking, and therefore I should be aware of the complications and difficulties that will arise as a result. Not every single one of these criteria must be followed, it's still down to the individuals choice. However if an individual was to follow these and apply them to their own individual preferences then as I said, we can make more informed decisions with the people we choose | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand or wish to understand the dynamics of a car whenever I drive one so why would I need to understand social dynamics? I meet someone, we talk and we may or may not click. If I thought for a second that they were analysing that conversation or building a framework or ticking boxes, they wouldn't last too long. Again, everyone is different, you may not care, for others it's very important for them to understand. It also helps to understand all of this when it comes to raising our children and educating them on how the world runs in ways that will be easy for them to learn, so as they get older, they're better prepared, they'll still make mistakes along the way, but this framework gives people who face various problems have better understanding to work off and apply it to their lives depending on the various aspects where issues have arisen. We'll have to agree to disagree. I've already raised 3 children and they in turn are raising my grandkids but living a life based on a framework dictated by others seems a strange way to encourage anyone to grow and be themselves. I wouldn't say this was a framework to be enforced, again I say these should be considered more than they probably deserve. In the end it's down to our choice. I myself have the choice to be with someone who doesn't match my energy intellectually speaking, and therefore I should be aware of the complications and difficulties that will arise as a result. Not every single one of these criteria must be followed, it's still down to the individuals choice. However if an individual was to follow these and apply them to their own individual preferences then as I said, we can make more informed decisions with the people we choose" I have to reword this, these things should deserve more credit than they're given, especially when it comes to biological compatibility | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm just glad I'm not looking to date. When my partner died I knew I'd never want another man. I here so many bad reports about dating sites I genuiny feel sorry for people looking for relationships. Things used to be so much easier" It really is getting really bad these days, which is why I've been working on this as part of my understanding of everything especially in a modern and present context. I'm sorry to hear about your partner, I can't imagine how that must've affected your life 😟 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting read, some very good point. I think (1) has a little whiff of heteronormativity in the application of theory. And it's something of an appeal to nature to indicate that biological explanations ought to be foundational. (2) Seems sound in many ways, but I find myself wondering how you define emotionally grounded. I personally find someone can be quite emotionally expressive and very grounded, and a healthy part of regulation and communication. Adverse experiences can lead people to deeper introspection and self-awareness, I have found, personally. There's also a cultural element to consider here, I think. The rest I find relatable, but I find diversity in beliefs and values can be very much additive to a relationship, it feels like there's an emphasis on similarity as the basis for compatibility to a certain degree. 1: no it isn't solely based in heteronormativity. I've tried to avoid using gender specific examples to allow for this to apply to people who are gay, lesbian and trans. 2: what could determine someone being emotionally grounded, which ties in with emotional intelligence, is generally someone who is self-aware and introspective, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will never make mistakes, nobody is perfect, but they possess a level of emotional stability and intelligence that is more likely to lead to growth rather than destruction. It doesn't necessarily mean that a person cannot be emotionally expressive, they can be very expressive, as long as it is in a way that is more positive than negative. In terms of varying beliefs, that again requires the intellectual and emotional compatibility. It doesn't mean you both have to be Christian if you're religious, just open to acceptance of differences. I myself recently had someone interested in me who is Lebanese, from a Muslim background but not necessarily practicing Islam, never considered this for myself ever in my life but we certainly clicked in many ways." My feedback wasn't meant to be personal, but I do appreciate you sharing your anecdotal experience. How do you distinguish between positive and negative emotional expression? I think sometimes the avoidance of expressing the 'negative' can become destructive in a relationship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting read, some very good point. I think (1) has a little whiff of heteronormativity in the application of theory. And it's something of an appeal to nature to indicate that biological explanations ought to be foundational. (2) Seems sound in many ways, but I find myself wondering how you define emotionally grounded. I personally find someone can be quite emotionally expressive and very grounded, and a healthy part of regulation and communication. Adverse experiences can lead people to deeper introspection and self-awareness, I have found, personally. There's also a cultural element to consider here, I think. The rest I find relatable, but I find diversity in beliefs and values can be very much additive to a relationship, it feels like there's an emphasis on similarity as the basis for compatibility to a certain degree. 1: no it isn't solely based in heteronormativity. I've tried to avoid using gender specific examples to allow for this to apply to people who are gay, lesbian and trans. 2: what could determine someone being emotionally grounded, which ties in with emotional intelligence, is generally someone who is self-aware and introspective, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will never make mistakes, nobody is perfect, but they possess a level of emotional stability and intelligence that is more likely to lead to growth rather than destruction. It doesn't necessarily mean that a person cannot be emotionally expressive, they can be very expressive, as long as it is in a way that is more positive than negative. In terms of varying beliefs, that again requires the intellectual and emotional compatibility. It doesn't mean you both have to be Christian if you're religious, just open to acceptance of differences. I myself recently had someone interested in me who is Lebanese, from a Muslim background but not necessarily practicing Islam, never considered this for myself ever in my life but we certainly clicked in many ways. My feedback wasn't meant to be personal, but I do appreciate you sharing your anecdotal experience. How do you distinguish between positive and negative emotional expression? I think sometimes the avoidance of expressing the 'negative' can become destructive in a relationship." Oh i know your feedback wasnt personal. And I'm authentic as I can be, I have no shame or fear to hide any aspect of my life which I won't talk about which is relevant to the subject of discussion I've often thought about toxicity in relationships as well as social interactions. Some situations could be considered as "constructive toxicity", something that while toxic and negative on the surface, can lead an individual to be introspective as a result and gain a new understanding. I can recall to many situations in my life that were toxicity projected at me, but it lead me to be introspective or even decide to strive to be better in some aspect of my life relevant to the context of the toxicity that was projected towards me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s obviously very complicated and way above my IQ grade, but I think it very much depends where you are within Maslows hierarchy of needs. Without dragging it all into the gutter, there are times when you simply don’t care. It’s incredible how quickly things can change. " Yes some of this does bring Maslows hierarchy into this. Though with constant changes in society it helps to formulate other frameworks of understanding to better navigate these complex dynamics and nuances. I wouldn't say this is above your IQ grade, you can break this down into very simple and easy to grasp concepts and then from there, derive your own basis for how you choose to implement them into your life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry OP... going to have to disagree. I've not read it intently but it reads more like how to find a life partner not navigating romance. Romance exists in any close affair we have - otherwise we wouldn't be close. I am not talking about fuck and go meets here, I am talking about communicating with someone so as you appeal for a minute, a day or week, even if it doesn't work out. You give romance in a touch, a look, the tone or phrasing you make - you don't have romance as a result of social rules.. those are facilitators to commonality." This isn't specifically based in finding life partners, it can work for both long term relationships and short term flings. Depending on the need, various things like social compatibility become less important. That's why when an individual understands these dynamics, they and apply what is relevant to the situation. A short term fling may only require biological compatibility, or emotional depending which is important to the individual. I'd wager that you may not have a good time with someone for a quick hookup if they were incompatible across the board. Romance would be a factor based in things like emotional and intellectual stimulation. If you are compatible and communicate your needs where tou express your various desires for romance (or the lack of care for it on the other hand) allows both parties to determine compatibility | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Longest thread title in history followed by the longest preamble in the history of history Hands up if anyone had the will to finsh the title let alone the introduction Sorry OP … had to be said .. " Would you rather I created a 15 second video reel into short form content to be more appealling? 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bookmarking to reply when I have more time " I look forward to hearing your perspective and input 👍 Thanks in advance for taking the time to read 🫶 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry OP... going to have to disagree. I've not read it intently but it reads more like how to find a life partner not navigating romance. Romance exists in any close affair we have - otherwise we wouldn't be close. I am not talking about fuck and go meets here, I am talking about communicating with someone so as you appeal for a minute, a day or week, even if it doesn't work out. You give romance in a touch, a look, the tone or phrasing you make - you don't have romance as a result of social rules.. those are facilitators to commonality. This isn't specifically based in finding life partners, it can work for both long term relationships and short term flings. Depending on the need, various things like social compatibility become less important. That's why when an individual understands these dynamics, they and apply what is relevant to the situation. A short term fling may only require biological compatibility, or emotional depending which is important to the individual. I'd wager that you may not have a good time with someone for a quick hookup if they were incompatible across the board. Romance would be a factor based in things like emotional and intellectual stimulation. If you are compatible and communicate your needs where tou express your various desires for romance (or the lack of care for it on the other hand) allows both parties to determine compatibility" As I say I've only given the OP a brief read, but if me and someone were to match on all of them.. there should be romance yes? It's not as seamless. It is why I responded as the majority of my partners have been far and wide away to me belief, emotional and social.. I have never judged intellect, I'm not best communicator at the best of times. Just thoughts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry OP... going to have to disagree. I've not read it intently but it reads more like how to find a life partner not navigating romance. Romance exists in any close affair we have - otherwise we wouldn't be close. I am not talking about fuck and go meets here, I am talking about communicating with someone so as you appeal for a minute, a day or week, even if it doesn't work out. You give romance in a touch, a look, the tone or phrasing you make - you don't have romance as a result of social rules.. those are facilitators to commonality. This isn't specifically based in finding life partners, it can work for both long term relationships and short term flings. Depending on the need, various things like social compatibility become less important. That's why when an individual understands these dynamics, they and apply what is relevant to the situation. A short term fling may only require biological compatibility, or emotional depending which is important to the individual. I'd wager that you may not have a good time with someone for a quick hookup if they were incompatible across the board. Romance would be a factor based in things like emotional and intellectual stimulation. If you are compatible and communicate your needs where tou express your various desires for romance (or the lack of care for it on the other hand) allows both parties to determine compatibility As I say I've only given the OP a brief read, but if me and someone were to match on all of them.. there should be romance yes? It's not as seamless. It is why I responded as the majority of my partners have been far and wide away to me belief, emotional and social.. I have never judged intellect, I'm not best communicator at the best of times. Just thoughts. " Well I believe romance is relative to each individual. If there are differences in romantic values and one individual may not put so much focus on that aspect for a functional relationship, then factors such as emotional, intellectual, and belief systems help navigate this difference. Depending on the importance of this dynamic, it either becomes a minor issue or a major one. That's where it's necessary for effective communication, understanding and openness to learning or inviting new experiences. Not all but a lot of these factors also apply to platonic friendships, or even mere acceptance within a community that is diverse. It's important that we all understand these and figure out for ourselves what is more important than others, though it should go without saying that awareness of differences or assigning value to each factor can lead to difficulties. Difficulties that don't necessarily have to be unresolvable, but worth considering, especially when becoming involved with new people and the dynamic that unfolds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've more or resigned myself to the idea that I'm probably going to die alone. Modern dating is pretty horrendous." Everyone does.unless you have really good mates who say ‘hang on bro gimme a min and I’ll die with ya. Nothing on tele anyway’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure why we - as a species - need such a framework. Crack on with one that works for you, but I think the criteria that people use (consciously or not) to select a 'mate' will be pretty personal to them? But good luck with the book!" The way I see things, and many people can attest in terms of their experiences with social interactions especially regarding mate selection in whatever context that applies to them, swingers, poly relationships, hookup culture, and monogamous relationships.. Everyone has been so distracted with social commentary regarding toxic relationships, dating apps, relationship maximising mindsets, toxic ideologies, destructive and unproductive behaviours, I feel there's needs to be something to give people a form of compass to help them navigate the world within society when it comes to intimacy and sexual relationships, and even help them understand themselves in terms of discovering what they truly want from the experiences | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Crikey. All the worthwhile things that you could have done instead of spending hours on tapping out reams of utter, er, prose..." Somewhat close-minded of you. By doing this I'm exercising my knowledge and also this is serving as an interesting environment for perspectives and feedback to further help me refine this given the kind if site this. In order to peer review this with everyday people and their perspectives l, not just here on fab but on other platforms to expand the net, it's valuable to me, and may be valuable to those who have read this this may learn something from it. But as is the case for anything, there's a spectrum - people who will agree, people who will find value in this, people who will be critical or skeptical, and people like you who just want to dismiss it's value. But hey, that's up to you 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"op, has this worked for you and your now in a perfect relationship" His finance is still reading the pre nup .. so response expected by Xmas Imagine Ops wedding vows …. Better start the service a few days early | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"op, has this worked for you and your now in a perfect relationship" No relationship is ever perfect, however this is working in terms of forming meaningful bonds with people with online and in the real world. Eventually I know it will allow me to find a more suitable life partner, and in the meantime, have more exciting and fulfilling experiences | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont even read profiles, i wasnt gonna read all that, sorry OP 🤦🏼♂️ Cake. Probably the answer to whatever the eventual question was. Or, get along to socials and clubs "It's not like I wrote this for you 🙄🤦♂️ Other people find this interesting and worth reading to break up the constant repeat threads we see on a daily basis 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure why we - as a species - need such a framework. Crack on with one that works for you, but I think the criteria that people use (consciously or not) to select a 'mate' will be pretty personal to them? But good luck with the book! The way I see things, and many people can attest in terms of their experiences with social interactions especially regarding mate selection in whatever context that applies to them, swingers, poly relationships, hookup culture, and monogamous relationships.. Everyone has been so distracted with social commentary regarding toxic relationships, dating apps, relationship maximising mindsets, toxic ideologies, destructive and unproductive behaviours, I feel there's needs to be something to give people a form of compass to help them navigate the world within society when it comes to intimacy and sexual relationships, and even help them understand themselves in terms of discovering what they truly want from the experiences" But isn’t the social commentary actually a more sophisticated compass? People are now more aware of behaviours incompatible with a healthy relationship because of this expanded taxonomy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a thing today that resonated for me. That monogamy is building your life around a relationship and that polyamory is building relationships around your life. " That's definitely an interesting take. I've heard people being polyamorous is a reaction to the various boundaries/preferences they've developed through life, however those manifested through their lived experiences | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure why we - as a species - need such a framework. Crack on with one that works for you, but I think the criteria that people use (consciously or not) to select a 'mate' will be pretty personal to them? But good luck with the book! The way I see things, and many people can attest in terms of their experiences with social interactions especially regarding mate selection in whatever context that applies to them, swingers, poly relationships, hookup culture, and monogamous relationships.. Everyone has been so distracted with social commentary regarding toxic relationships, dating apps, relationship maximising mindsets, toxic ideologies, destructive and unproductive behaviours, I feel there's needs to be something to give people a form of compass to help them navigate the world within society when it comes to intimacy and sexual relationships, and even help them understand themselves in terms of discovering what they truly want from the experiences But isn’t the social commentary actually a more sophisticated compass? People are now more aware of behaviours incompatible with a healthy relationship because of this expanded taxonomy. " It does serve as a compass but to be brutally honest, people can be very gullible, easy manipulated and influenced by the commentary of others based on their anecdotal experiences. By using a framework that's purely based on that individuals desires and needs, and how they can identify who is suitable for them rather than allowing their ideals to be influenced by a minority of social media personalities or platforms that allow social dialogue like Facebook, they can be more likely to form their own ideas. I've seen soooo much rhetoric in social media I see so many people making huge sweeping generalisations, internalised trauma or societal conditioning. It's a hard pill to swallow but a lot of people just don't have the foresight to be critical and discerning of the information presented to them to figure out the validity in social anecdotes. I do also find A LOT of destructive and alienating dialogue even by people who claim to be relationship counsellors or psychologists, which suggests a huge lack of awareness in how they present their information. While they may make valid points, they get immediately crippled by using the wrong kind of language to keep an audience engaged and open to learning | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure why we - as a species - need such a framework. Crack on with one that works for you, but I think the criteria that people use (consciously or not) to select a 'mate' will be pretty personal to them? But good luck with the book! The way I see things, and many people can attest in terms of their experiences with social interactions especially regarding mate selection in whatever context that applies to them, swingers, poly relationships, hookup culture, and monogamous relationships.. Everyone has been so distracted with social commentary regarding toxic relationships, dating apps, relationship maximising mindsets, toxic ideologies, destructive and unproductive behaviours, I feel there's needs to be something to give people a form of compass to help them navigate the world within society when it comes to intimacy and sexual relationships, and even help them understand themselves in terms of discovering what they truly want from the experiences" From where I see it there is a much simpler compass for navigating life and relationships. It involves actually engaging with people and not focusing on buzzwords or fads and trends. I've never been distracted by social commentary or toxic ideology because I don't subscribe to the idea of sticking a label on everyone and everything. Unfortunately this framework idea sounds exactly like one of those tiktok videos showing a 30 minute solution to a 30 second problem. Overcomplicating is more often than not the greatest barrier to any relationship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure why we - as a species - need such a framework. Crack on with one that works for you, but I think the criteria that people use (consciously or not) to select a 'mate' will be pretty personal to them? But good luck with the book! The way I see things, and many people can attest in terms of their experiences with social interactions especially regarding mate selection in whatever context that applies to them, swingers, poly relationships, hookup culture, and monogamous relationships.. Everyone has been so distracted with social commentary regarding toxic relationships, dating apps, relationship maximising mindsets, toxic ideologies, destructive and unproductive behaviours, I feel there's needs to be something to give people a form of compass to help them navigate the world within society when it comes to intimacy and sexual relationships, and even help them understand themselves in terms of discovering what they truly want from the experiences From where I see it there is a much simpler compass for navigating life and relationships. It involves actually engaging with people and not focusing on buzzwords or fads and trends. I've never been distracted by social commentary or toxic ideology because I don't subscribe to the idea of sticking a label on everyone and everything. Unfortunately this framework idea sounds exactly like one of those tiktok videos showing a 30 minute solution to a 30 second problem. Overcomplicating is more often than not the greatest barrier to any relationship. " That may be how you function in your life, however not everyone is you or thinks like you, a lot of people are in need of guidance. And I would also add that tiktok is an absolutely horrid place for information. I will have to say that I do not agree in the slightest that this is some kind of tiktok 30 minute solution to a 30 second problem, I've put an awful lot more thought into this subject and those people on tiktok. I could write (and maybe one day will) an entire published thesis on this subject alone that those people couldn't accomplish. Think of that what you will, but I put my work under a high level of scrutiny to work out the kinks and develop it into something worth academic credit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I would only take advice from someone who could prove success over relationships lasting many years. I might be a tricky but most of my friendships are over 30 years and I managed to hold down a wonderful amazing relationship for 16 years until he died" See now that's something I've found very misguided. Ever seen people talk about how an individual can learn and grow through failure? An artist creating artwork, a musician creating music, a doctor developing a cure, a martial artist losing fights? I've often seen people say the exact same thing but then also offer little in the way of insightful wisdom. To dismiss ones perspectives based on that criteria regardless of their circumstances and experiences just tells me you possess a kind of rigidness and sense of superiority over those you deem less successful than you, ultimately shutting yourself off from new perspectives and opportunities to learn. But hey you can say what you like 🤷♂️ in the end those who find value in this and maybe learn something from it can suggest that your opinion isn't as valid as you may think. I've already given this framework to other people on other platforms and it was well received by them, so can you really say for sure that you won't learn anything if you give it proper consideration?... food for thought | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"op, has this worked for you and your now in a perfect relationship His finance is still reading the pre nup .. so response expected by Xmas Imagine Ops wedding vows …. Better start the service a few days early" 🤭 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But as is the case for anything, there's a spectrum - people who will agree, people who will find value in this, people who will be critical or skeptical, and people like you who just want to dismiss it's value. But hey, that's up to you 🤷♂️" Value? "I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved." Specifically: "Criteria we as a species should consider." Hey, free country and so forth, go ahead and enjoy some intellectual rocket-polishing. If you regard it as anything other than an academic exercise, however... Whatever conclusions you reach, ultimately, the effort will have been pointless. Mate-finding will continue in the same old myriad ways. Nobody, absolutely nobody, will apply consciously your criteria. Do you think anyone would, really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But as is the case for anything, there's a spectrum - people who will agree, people who will find value in this, people who will be critical or skeptical, and people like you who just want to dismiss it's value. But hey, that's up to you 🤷♂️ Value? "I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved." Specifically: "Criteria we as a species should consider." Hey, free country and so forth, go ahead and enjoy some intellectual rocket-polishing. If you regard it as anything other than an academic exercise, however... Whatever conclusions you reach, ultimately, the effort will have been pointless. Mate-finding will continue in the same old myriad ways. Nobody, absolutely nobody, will apply consciously your criteria. Do you think anyone would, really?" Lol... free country... 😂 From what I've learned through my experiences when discussing this subject with various people in other places, it certainly seems like they have learnt some interesting points I raise and found them going off into their own group discussions to the point I can just take a step back and observe how they share their ideas and experiences... I wouldn't call that pointless. And you just have to look at all the books, podcasts and academic papers that discuss this topic to see that people do learn from these sorts of discussions and insights, especially in the context of people seeking relationship counsellors. So yeah... I do believe this is actually worth my time and I couldn't care less for any kind feedback, if you can even call it feedback, that doesn't serve any intellectual purpose to refining this work or providing a new perspective I can incorporate into my studies. But hey... it's a free country right? 🤷♂️😉 I'm open to opinions but if it's just bashing for the sake of bashing then I would argue your attempt to express whatever it is you're expressing to be far more pointless than what you claim my research to be 🤷♂️🙂 If you actually have something of intellectual or academic value to provide that can dismantle what I have studied, by all means please share as I'm all ears, otherwise, thanks for participating in bumping this thread 👍😁 I appreciate making this thread more visible for longer for those who actually might learn something, or having something of value to contribute | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But as is the case for anything, there's a spectrum - people who will agree, people who will find value in this, people who will be critical or skeptical, and people like you who just want to dismiss it's value. But hey, that's up to you 🤷♂️ Value? "I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved." Specifically: "Criteria we as a species should consider." Hey, free country and so forth, go ahead and enjoy some intellectual rocket-polishing. If you regard it as anything other than an academic exercise, however... Whatever conclusions you reach, ultimately, the effort will have been pointless. Mate-finding will continue in the same old myriad ways. Nobody, absolutely nobody, will apply consciously your criteria. Do you think anyone would, really? Lol... free country... 😂 From what I've learned through my experiences when discussing this subject with various people in other places, it certainly seems like they have learnt some interesting points I raise and found them going off into their own group discussions to the point I can just take a step back and observe how they share their ideas and experiences... I wouldn't call that pointless. And you just have to look at all the books, podcasts and academic papers that discuss this topic to see that people do learn from these sorts of discussions and insights, especially in the context of people seeking relationship counsellors. So yeah... I do believe this is actually worth my time and I couldn't care less for any kind feedback, if you can even call it feedback, that doesn't serve any intellectual purpose to refining this work or providing a new perspective I can incorporate into my studies. But hey... it's a free country right? 🤷♂️😉 I'm open to opinions but if it's just bashing for the sake of bashing then I would argue your attempt to express whatever it is you're expressing to be far more pointless than what you claim my research to be 🤷♂️🙂 If you actually have something of intellectual or academic value to provide that can dismantle what I have studied, by all means please share as I'm all ears, otherwise, thanks for participating in bumping this thread 👍😁 I appreciate making this thread more visible for longer for those who actually might learn something, or having something of value to contribute" You didn't answer my question, which wasn't rhetorical. I'm not surprised. On the other hand, I'm grateful for the inadvertent reminder to renew a long-lapsed subscription to Private Eye. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But as is the case for anything, there's a spectrum - people who will agree, people who will find value in this, people who will be critical or skeptical, and people like you who just want to dismiss it's value. But hey, that's up to you 🤷♂️ Value? "I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved." Specifically: "Criteria we as a species should consider." Hey, free country and so forth, go ahead and enjoy some intellectual rocket-polishing. If you regard it as anything other than an academic exercise, however... Whatever conclusions you reach, ultimately, the effort will have been pointless. Mate-finding will continue in the same old myriad ways. Nobody, absolutely nobody, will apply consciously your criteria. Do you think anyone would, really? Lol... free country... 😂 From what I've learned through my experiences when discussing this subject with various people in other places, it certainly seems like they have learnt some interesting points I raise and found them going off into their own group discussions to the point I can just take a step back and observe how they share their ideas and experiences... I wouldn't call that pointless. And you just have to look at all the books, podcasts and academic papers that discuss this topic to see that people do learn from these sorts of discussions and insights, especially in the context of people seeking relationship counsellors. So yeah... I do believe this is actually worth my time and I couldn't care less for any kind feedback, if you can even call it feedback, that doesn't serve any intellectual purpose to refining this work or providing a new perspective I can incorporate into my studies. But hey... it's a free country right? 🤷♂️😉 I'm open to opinions but if it's just bashing for the sake of bashing then I would argue your attempt to express whatever it is you're expressing to be far more pointless than what you claim my research to be 🤷♂️🙂 If you actually have something of intellectual or academic value to provide that can dismantle what I have studied, by all means please share as I'm all ears, otherwise, thanks for participating in bumping this thread 👍😁 I appreciate making this thread more visible for longer for those who actually might learn something, or having something of value to contribute You didn't answer my question, which wasn't rhetorical. I'm not surprised. On the other hand, I'm grateful for the inadvertent reminder to renew a long-lapsed subscription to Private Eye. " I think you'll find I did answer your question, if you would like to go back and read what I said again... 🙄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP, I really enjoyed the read!" You're more than welcome and I appreciate that you took the time to read and enjoy what I wrote 😊 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Ehm. Anyone fancy a shag in a safe, respectful and friendly fun sort of way? " Don't forget the biological compatibility to ensure you get that more intense physical response to each others presence 👍😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So Ehm. Anyone fancy a shag in a safe, respectful and friendly fun sort of way? Don't forget the biological compatibility to ensure you get that more intense physical response to each others presence 👍😉" My bit fits her bits. Gotcha. 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But as is the case for anything, there's a spectrum - people who will agree, people who will find value in this, people who will be critical or skeptical, and people like you who just want to dismiss it's value. But hey, that's up to you 🤷♂️ Value? "I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved." Specifically: "Criteria we as a species should consider." Hey, free country and so forth, go ahead and enjoy some intellectual rocket-polishing. If you regard it as anything other than an academic exercise, however... Whatever conclusions you reach, ultimately, the effort will have been pointless. Mate-finding will continue in the same old myriad ways. Nobody, absolutely nobody, will apply consciously your criteria. Do you think anyone would, really? Lol... free country... 😂 From what I've learned through my experiences when discussing this subject with various people in other places, it certainly seems like they have learnt some interesting points I raise and found them going off into their own group discussions to the point I can just take a step back and observe how they share their ideas and experiences... I wouldn't call that pointless. And you just have to look at all the books, podcasts and academic papers that discuss this topic to see that people do learn from these sorts of discussions and insights, especially in the context of people seeking relationship counsellors. So yeah... I do believe this is actually worth my time and I couldn't care less for any kind feedback, if you can even call it feedback, that doesn't serve any intellectual purpose to refining this work or providing a new perspective I can incorporate into my studies. But hey... it's a free country right? 🤷♂️😉 I'm open to opinions but if it's just bashing for the sake of bashing then I would argue your attempt to express whatever it is you're expressing to be far more pointless than what you claim my research to be 🤷♂️🙂 If you actually have something of intellectual or academic value to provide that can dismantle what I have studied, by all means please share as I'm all ears, otherwise, thanks for participating in bumping this thread 👍😁 I appreciate making this thread more visible for longer for those who actually might learn something, or having something of value to contribute You didn't answer my question, which wasn't rhetorical. I'm not surprised. On the other hand, I'm grateful for the inadvertent reminder to renew a long-lapsed subscription to Private Eye. I think you'll find I did answer your question, if you would like to go back and read what I said again... 🙄" I have; you didn't. Again: Do you think that anyone, consciously, would apply your criteria? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You should look into sociograms and social capital metrics. Last year I worked for this client I ran tests on groups of people in large companies and how they interact and then mapped it using sociogram I took the metrics from individuals and groups. I also did myself. I’m the super collaborator & connector. I take small groups and join them up. I also find people that can work together and put them in pairs. None of this happens through organisation hierarchy is all through social networking. " That's pretty interesting, I have found some things like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to be somewhat flimsy with its style of categorising people into boxes. I took that test myself and came up with different results 🤨 so I found it to be a bit inaccurate. The idea behind what I've been working on just gives people the tools for reflection to guide them to making more informed decisions. It's not like some kind of set of rules people must follow, rather it's more like a guide to get them thinking and apply it to their own lives in however that suits them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think you underestimate the amount of people on fab that have tik tok brain that just want quick satisfactions- being in reading something on the forum, watching videos or finding someone to F..k - it is literally just a scroll for them, and would be immediately disinterested seeing the long read ahead. Everything that you wrote above is most likely true, but putting all of these criteria to the forefront becomes a bit robotic and unnatural...a date becomes like a job interview...the first few weeks become like a job probation...and dating should come natural. Also subconsciously we already do all of that - analysing and ticking boxes - that gives us an insight of the compatibility...it just takes a bit longer...it takes time to truly get to know someone and observe and experience their behaviour and gestures and mindset in various different circumstances. The truth is that all of these criteria you mentioned have already been put to the test - there have been hundreds of dating/matchmaking agencies/platforms that used specifically these factors to match people and still the success rate of finding someone they like was and still is very small... the complexity of human attraction simply cannot be put into bullet points, and is most likely a matter of luck that anything else." Oh I'm fully aware of the vast number of people who are only interested in short form content. Despite that, I know at least few people will, and have, enjoyed reading 🤷♂️ As for how this can be applied, it's not about putting people under review and turning interactions into some job interview with a check list. It's more about helping people be more reflective about what the fundamentally important factors are that govern a successful relationship. From my experience and research, there really are a lot of people who could use that level of guidance. Not everyone is as mindful or self aware, as you put it, everyone already does this... I don't believe that to be true. While a lot of people do consider important values which are relevant to the individual such as certain beliefs, there's nothing that suggests they have reflected on the possibility they may be lacking in social acceptance, or emotional intelligence. This is a tool to put other people through a rigorous checklist, it can also be applied to the self for reflection and self improvement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have; you didn't. Again: Do you think that anyone, consciously, would apply your criteria? " I'll make it simple and clear for you then. YES I DO. Since there's been so many psychological studies and concepts of frameworks, especially the MBTI which I've seen MANY people use especially within the neurodivergent communities I'm a member of, I'm going to stick with the belief that with proper research and study, a well thought out and factual structured framework using applied psychology, with citation, referencing other data and studies to back up the conceptual model, many people may find it to be a useful tool. But like I said, your participation in this thread helps it remain visible for others, so you're doing me a favour rather than what you think you're doing which is to dismiss and undermine it's value 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You never answered me but I guess I'm just to simple for you" I will. It makes sense. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You have proved it with the length and ability to hold down long term relationships. I like simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am simplistic in fab use. I just require mutual sex with people nothing further than that . The minimum social requirement with people to enable a sexual meet suffices in most cases . Practically all of my needs are one off . I don’t view sex based sites like fab as the sort of place for developing / finding meaningful substance as ultimately the core function of swinging is based upon sexual fantasy / exploration for most people I am aware a small number of people do find life partners from sites like this but I would safely bet that’s an anomaly. For me it’s simple. Do I find some physical trigger attraction In said person to wish to engage. If yes carry on if no then move along. I get zoned out with people that want to engage in weeks / months of talk before meeting as inevitably i find if you don’t meet within 2/3 weeks the probability is almost zero as interest wanes or other things happen. Out of sight out of mind " It honestly depends on the individual. For some like yourself, not speaking about you specifically, but biological compatibility can be worth considering. I've née with a couple people on my life and always wondered why their breath smelt off to me. Even if they had brushed their teeth, were hygienic, and had eaten so their stomach wasn't eating itself, they still smelt bad to me. They also didn't give me the same physical stimulation than someone who was biologically compatibility and the physical responses were far more profound. Later in life after learning about pheromones and our biological makeup did I realise that this was the likely cause for those partnerships which were either highly physically stimulating, or not. I didn't post this thread to tell people of Fab what to do, rather it's more about peer review, and just giving people something interesting read, and maybe some people would have something interesting to contribute. As I said previously, it's up to anyone whether they want to take something from this, whatever their approach to fab, or life as a whole may be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You never answered me but I guess I'm just to simple for you" I did, scroll up. I even saw you correct yourself where you called yourself a thicky, I wouldn't agree. But I did answer you... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am simplistic in fab use. I just require mutual sex with people nothing further than that . The minimum social requirement with people to enable a sexual meet suffices in most cases . Practically all of my needs are one off . I don’t view sex based sites like fab as the sort of place for developing / finding meaningful substance as ultimately the core function of swinging is based upon sexual fantasy / exploration for most people I am aware a small number of people do find life partners from sites like this but I would safely bet that’s an anomaly. For me it’s simple. Do I find some physical trigger attraction In said person to wish to engage. If yes carry on if no then move along. I get zoned out with people that want to engage in weeks / months of talk before meeting as inevitably i find if you don’t meet within 2/3 weeks the probability is almost zero as interest wanes or other things happen. Out of sight out of mind It honestly depends on the individual. For some like yourself, not speaking about you specifically, but biological compatibility can be worth considering. I've née with a couple people on my life and always wondered why their breath smelt off to me. Even if they had brushed their teeth, were hygienic, and had eaten so their stomach wasn't eating itself, they still smelt bad to me. They also didn't give me the same physical stimulation than someone who was biologically compatibility and the physical responses were far more profound. Later in life after learning about pheromones and our biological makeup did I realise that this was the likely cause for those partnerships which were either highly physically stimulating, or not. I didn't post this thread to tell people of Fab what to do, rather it's more about peer review, and just giving people something interesting read, and maybe some people would have something interesting to contribute. As I said previously, it's up to anyone whether they want to take something from this, whatever their approach to fab, or life as a whole may be." I don’t need to look that deep into people I base all life and experience purely from mathematical probability/ function . I don’t see casual hookups anything more than abit of entertainment so I don’t look at people in the same light as if I was dating a person remotely. For that I would be looking purely into mental synergy first then physical synergy second . Pheromones is a very old studied subject and humans are programmed to pick up on some and some not so much. I get that alot from men and women that say I don’t smell like a male , maybe my oestrogen therapy over the years has altered my natural smell to that of more feminine. Who knows but instinctual smell people give off is something indeed.
Doesn’t stop me from still wanting to fuck someone if I find then physically stimulating though as in a casual meet I am not looking really further than the immediate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I would only take advice from someone who could prove success over relationships lasting many years. I might be a tricky but most of my friendships are over 30 years and I managed to hold down a wonderful amazing relationship for 16 years until he died See now that's something I've found very misguided. Ever seen people talk about how an individual can learn and grow through failure? An artist creating artwork, a musician creating music, a doctor developing a cure, a martial artist losing fights? I've often seen people say the exact same thing but then also offer little in the way of insightful wisdom. To dismiss ones perspectives based on that criteria regardless of their circumstances and experiences just tells me you possess a kind of rigidness and sense of superiority over those you deem less successful than you, ultimately shutting yourself off from new perspectives and opportunities to learn. But hey you can say what you like 🤷♂️ in the end those who find value in this and maybe learn something from it can suggest that your opinion isn't as valid as you may think. I've already given this framework to other people on other platforms and it was well received by them, so can you really say for sure that you won't learn anything if you give it proper consideration?... food for thought" That's rubbish. I don't think I'm superior at all. I was 41 when i met the love of my life. I had many failed relationships before then. What I did do was learn and grow from my mistakes so by the time I met him I was in a position to reep the benefits from some very hard lessons, I puy a lot of effort into it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t need to look that deep into people I base all life and experience purely from mathematical probability/ function . I don’t see casual hookups anything more than abit of entertainment so I don’t look at people in the same light as if I was dating a person remotely. For that I would be looking purely into mental synergy first then physical synergy second . Pheromones is a very old studied subject and humans are programmed to pick up on some and some not so much. I get that alot from men and women that say I don’t smell like a male , maybe my oestrogen therapy over the years has altered my natural smell to that of more feminine. Who knows but instinctual smell people give off is something indeed.
Doesn’t stop me from still wanting to fuck someone if I find then physically stimulating though as in a casual meet I am not looking really further than the immediate "Everyone is different, the adaptability of a tool like this can still be useful in being reflective of others and not necessarily yourself. It can help understand what other people seek where context is lacking. Pheromones is an old studied subject but I've seen younger generations less aware of this questioning why they get more attention from men when they ovulate. So I believe there should some kind of return to our roots regarding where we as humans came from. Improving that kind of awareness can help those who may be struggling to figure out why things happen when it comes to sexual interest. I'm honestly not surprised in the slightest you've had those comments. If you and I were to meet I'd actually to a degree expect to smell the scent of a woman rather than a man, same would apply to any trans woman I met who has been on HRT long enough for the hormones to have a significant impact on their physiology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I would only take advice from someone who could prove success over relationships lasting many years. I might be a tricky but most of my friendships are over 30 years and I managed to hold down a wonderful amazing relationship for 16 years until he died See now that's something I've found very misguided. Ever seen people talk about how an individual can learn and grow through failure? An artist creating artwork, a musician creating music, a doctor developing a cure, a martial artist losing fights? I've often seen people say the exact same thing but then also offer little in the way of insightful wisdom. To dismiss ones perspectives based on that criteria regardless of their circumstances and experiences just tells me you possess a kind of rigidness and sense of superiority over those you deem less successful than you, ultimately shutting yourself off from new perspectives and opportunities to learn. But hey you can say what you like 🤷♂️ in the end those who find value in this and maybe learn something from it can suggest that your opinion isn't as valid as you may think. I've already given this framework to other people on other platforms and it was well received by them, so can you really say for sure that you won't learn anything if you give it proper consideration?... food for thoughtThat's rubbish. I don't think I'm superior at all. I was 41 when i met the love of my life. I had many failed relationships before then. What I did do was learn and grow from my mistakes so by the time I met him I was in a position to reep the benefits from some very hard lessons, I puy a lot of effort into it " I would disagree... your comment was just dismissive. I've met many people in my life much younger than me, and while they lack the kind of life experience I have, they were still very wise beyond their years and im open to learnong something from them, i dont see myself as superior because I'm 10 years older. Age does not dictate wisdom or knowledge, it helps, but there are many people twice my age who are far from wise. In the end if you still want to dismiss this then fine, that's your choice, however likewise I can also dismiss your stance in disregarding this information. I mean if you feel there's nothing you need to learn, that doesn't apply to the majority or the whole. So then I wonder what is the purpose of your opinion and comment... is it to dismantle the work and study I've done? Is it to simply aire your opinion because your opinion matters? Have you got an academic background in applied psychology and/or sociology? Is your dismissal of this information based on anecdote or do you have the academic background to find the shortfalls of such a framework? If not.. then how should I take that opinion of yours on board? If there's nothing for me to consider, what value does your opinion hold? I'm open to criticism that can help refine this or make me aware of blindspots, backed up by actual scientific or academic research, however if it's mere dismissal based on individual anecdote then I honestly can't take that seriously 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I would only take advice from someone who could prove success over relationships lasting many years. I might be a tricky but most of my friendships are over 30 years and I managed to hold down a wonderful amazing relationship for 16 years until he died See now that's something I've found very misguided. Ever seen people talk about how an individual can learn and grow through failure? An artist creating artwork, a musician creating music, a doctor developing a cure, a martial artist losing fights? I've often seen people say the exact same thing but then also offer little in the way of insightful wisdom. To dismiss ones perspectives based on that criteria regardless of their circumstances and experiences just tells me you possess a kind of rigidness and sense of superiority over those you deem less successful than you, ultimately shutting yourself off from new perspectives and opportunities to learn. But hey you can say what you like 🤷♂️ in the end those who find value in this and maybe learn something from it can suggest that your opinion isn't as valid as you may think. I've already given this framework to other people on other platforms and it was well received by them, so can you really say for sure that you won't learn anything if you give it proper consideration?... food for thoughtThat's rubbish. I don't think I'm superior at all. I was 41 when i met the love of my life. I had many failed relationships before then. What I did do was learn and grow from my mistakes so by the time I met him I was in a position to reep the benefits from some very hard lessons, I puy a lot of effort into it I would disagree... your comment was just dismissive. I've met many people in my life much younger than me, and while they lack the kind of life experience I have, they were still very wise beyond their years and im open to learnong something from them, i dont see myself as superior because I'm 10 years older. Age does not dictate wisdom or knowledge, it helps, but there are many people twice my age who are far from wise. In the end if you still want to dismiss this then fine, that's your choice, however likewise I can also dismiss your stance in disregarding this information. I mean if you feel there's nothing you need to learn, that doesn't apply to the majority or the whole. So then I wonder what is the purpose of your opinion and comment... is it to dismantle the work and study I've done? Is it to simply aire your opinion because your opinion matters? Have you got an academic background in applied psychology and/or sociology? Is your dismissal of this information based on anecdote or do you have the academic background to find the shortfalls of such a framework? If not.. then how should I take that opinion of yours on board? If there's nothing for me to consider, what value does your opinion hold? I'm open to criticism that can help refine this or make me aware of blindspots, backed up by actual scientific or academic research, however if it's mere dismissal based on individual anecdote then I honestly can't take that seriously 🤷♂️" You've posted on an open forum, whether you like it or not your going to get different opinion as this thread shows. Not all agree with you. And as I'm not looking to ever have another relationship it doesn't matter a jolt to me but I can still have an opinion if I want | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"oh and there are many wise younger people even just by looking on the forum. I'd be more than happy to take advice from someone younger on certain things but only if they could prove success in what they've done" I can prove success with my discussions regarding mental health, psychology, jungian shadow work, with the fact that people who are far older than myself have approached me asking for help with their depression and mental health as a whole. One particular gentleman in his 60s. Since I have completely eliminated my 2 decade long suffering with depression without therapy, counselling, medication, completelyby myself without supprt, I feel more than experienced and qualified to go deep into applied psychology, which this framework leans heavily on. So by extension, I feel confident that I know what I'm talking about. But since you feel having a 16 year long relationship makes you more successful than myself, which i go back to my previous comment about feeling superior, I question how you feel anything or everything I've discussed in the first post is useless 🤔 If you don't feel it's useless then to some degree you agree with this, therefore you're only dismissing it based on the fact you feel more successful with having a 16 year long relationship, which is a misguided approach since you're not open to new ideas or learning from people you deem less successful by your set of standards, rather than looking at the information objectively. As you said its an open forum, so I'm equally free to point out the flaws in your mindset. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"oh and there are many wise younger people even just by looking on the forum. I'd be more than happy to take advice from someone younger on certain things but only if they could prove success in what they've done I can prove success with my discussions regarding mental health, psychology, jungian shadow work, with the fact that people who are far older than myself have approached me asking for help with their depression and mental health as a whole. One particular gentleman in his 60s. Since I have completely eliminated my 2 decade long suffering with depression without therapy, counselling, medication, completelyby myself without supprt, I feel more than experienced and qualified to go deep into applied psychology, which this framework leans heavily on. So by extension, I feel confident that I know what I'm talking about. But since you feel having a 16 year long relationship makes you more successful than myself, which i go back to my previous comment about feeling superior, I question how you feel anything or everything I've discussed in the first post is useless 🤔 If you don't feel it's useless then to some degree you agree with this, therefore you're only dismissing it based on the fact you feel more successful with having a 16 year long relationship, which is a misguided approach since you're not open to new ideas or learning from people you deem less successful by your set of standards, rather than looking at the information objectively. As you said its an open forum, so I'm equally free to point out the flaws in your mindset." As it's working for you crack on. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you as this thread shows as I'm not the only one that disagrees | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"oh and there are many wise younger people even just by looking on the forum. I'd be more than happy to take advice from someone younger on certain things but only if they could prove success in what they've done I can prove success with my discussions regarding mental health, psychology, jungian shadow work, with the fact that people who are far older than myself have approached me asking for help with their depression and mental health as a whole. One particular gentleman in his 60s. Since I have completely eliminated my 2 decade long suffering with depression without therapy, counselling, medication, completelyby myself without supprt, I feel more than experienced and qualified to go deep into applied psychology, which this framework leans heavily on. So by extension, I feel confident that I know what I'm talking about. But since you feel having a 16 year long relationship makes you more successful than myself, which i go back to my previous comment about feeling superior, I question how you feel anything or everything I've discussed in the first post is useless 🤔 If you don't feel it's useless then to some degree you agree with this, therefore you're only dismissing it based on the fact you feel more successful with having a 16 year long relationship, which is a misguided approach since you're not open to new ideas or learning from people you deem less successful by your set of standards, rather than looking at the information objectively. As you said its an open forum, so I'm equally free to point out the flaws in your mindset.As it's working for you crack on. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you as this thread shows as I'm not the only one that disagrees" I'm fully aware of that, but I won't shy away from pointing out the flaws in the logic used to dismiss this. A friend of mine who's opinion I do trust only had one criticism to give which was biological compatibility but that was only regarding the fact I'm not a medical doctor with a masters degree. I agree that aspect is something I need to do a lot more research on, but the psychological and sociological aspects were on point. And since a lot of this is derived from various frameworks and and studies that have been conducted by many institutions and well known psychologists, then surely it's based in solid fact. It's not like I've discovered anything new, rather I've been putting together into something more concise and less overwhelming for the average person to understand. So what I'm seeing is you're not only dismissing what I've put together but also the studies and evidence that were put together by those with higher credentials 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My reason for dismissing your approach is not based on science or peer reviewed studies. It's based on life experience which as far as I'm concerned is much more relevant. The points I have already made on this thread in regard to overcomplicating things still stand. In my experience, every person I have met who has been involved with relationship groups either online or in person or who bring science to the table in every discussion about relationships are the least happy people I know. They are never satisfied with the answers, they are unable to take things at face value, they doubt themselves and others and they are spinning in circles. You are claiming that while people are open to doing their own thing you don't seem to accept that a deep dive into a relationship can often be the issue it doesn't succeed. You can break it all down and reverse engineer it to see how it works but that doesn't make it work any better. Have you given any thought to why people who need such analysis are never happy and drift from one relationship to another feeling empty inside? I know people at the top of their profession who use science and analysis every single day but when they have applied that to their personal life it has been a complete disaster. My tiktok comment above had nothing to do with attention span and everything to do with not looking for a difficult and roundabout way of dealing with an issue when the simplest solution is right there in front of them. If people aren't self aware enough to form relationships they certainly won't follow guidelines or frameworks or won't have the ability to understand how it applies to them. Therefore my dismissal is based on a lifetime of experience where blinding with science is nothing more than deflection. It is also based on the old adage that the problem with common sense is that it's not very common." Well to address people being the least happy. I'm more than happy with my life, and I find that kind of comment very narrow minded since it's a broad statement and doesn't actually consider that everyone is different. See, the reason I'm doing this is because I find it interesting, I get a lot of enjoyment from learning and studying. I hyperfocus on the details and then the bigger picture, that's just who I am and does not reflect my emotional state. I would wager many people are the same. Outside of fab I have some truly meaningful and fulfilling friendships, and I have options, but I'm also self aware enough not to go diving into the next thing that comes along out of desperation, or loneliness, or fear of missing out. I'm focusing on choosing more wisely as I have in the past jumped into relationships for the absolutely wrong reasons because I didn't consider the various factors that I wrote about in my first post. And since working on a framework that I can apply to my life in making more informed decisions, I feel more confident and more relaxed with my decision making, I don't feel like need to rush into the next relationship to conform to society that would suggest being single makes me undesirable, that's utter bollocks. You don't consider the fact that there's a reason books and podcasts or other public content is created to help people with understanding how to navigate the modern landscape how county and perceptions, ideals, desires and needs have evolved over time. Some people are more fluid, some people are rigid, some people are fine doing their own thing and find success, others are seeking guidance. Those who seek guidance rely on this kind of information or knowledge to give them some kind of compass to help them. Some haven't found success, meanwhile others have and became more aware, reflective, and grew as people as a result. If you can't consider the sheer diversity of people that your comments can't/don't, apply to, then can you really say for sure that this does not hold any validity? I won't try to convince you, since you seem dead set on believing this won't work for you at all, however I will point out that you seem to be applying that logic across the board, speaking for people who are not you, don't think like you, or don't have your life experiences. I'm fully aware of the spectrum of people out there, those who find no use for this to be applied in their lives and think it's pointless, however, there are many who can and will find it helpful.. do you honestly speak for those people too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My reason for dismissing your approach is not based on science or peer reviewed studies. It's based on life experience which as far as I'm concerned is much more relevant. The points I have already made on this thread in regard to overcomplicating things still stand. In my experience, every person I have met who has been involved with relationship groups either online or in person or who bring science to the table in every discussion about relationships are the least happy people I know. They are never satisfied with the answers, they are unable to take things at face value, they doubt themselves and others and they are spinning in circles. You are claiming that while people are open to doing their own thing you don't seem to accept that a deep dive into a relationship can often be the issue it doesn't succeed. You can break it all down and reverse engineer it to see how it works but that doesn't make it work any better. Have you given any thought to why people who need such analysis are never happy and drift from one relationship to another feeling empty inside? I know people at the top of their profession who use science and analysis every single day but when they have applied that to their personal life it has been a complete disaster. My tiktok comment above had nothing to do with attention span and everything to do with not looking for a difficult and roundabout way of dealing with an issue when the simplest solution is right there in front of them. If people aren't self aware enough to form relationships they certainly won't follow guidelines or frameworks or won't have the ability to understand how it applies to them. Therefore my dismissal is based on a lifetime of experience where blinding with science is nothing more than deflection. It is also based on the old adage that the problem with common sense is that it's not very common. Well to address people being the least happy. I'm more than happy with my life, and I find that kind of comment very narrow minded since it's a broad statement and doesn't actually consider that everyone is different. See, the reason I'm doing this is because I find it interesting, I get a lot of enjoyment from learning and studying. I hyperfocus on the details and then the bigger picture, that's just who I am and does not reflect my emotional state. I would wager many people are the same. Outside of fab I have some truly meaningful and fulfilling friendships, and I have options, but I'm also self aware enough not to go diving into the next thing that comes along out of desperation, or loneliness, or fear of missing out. I'm focusing on choosing more wisely as I have in the past jumped into relationships for the absolutely wrong reasons because I didn't consider the various factors that I wrote about in my first post. And since working on a framework that I can apply to my life in making more informed decisions, I feel more confident and more relaxed with my decision making, I don't feel like need to rush into the next relationship to conform to society that would suggest being single makes me undesirable, that's utter bollocks. You don't consider the fact that there's a reason books and podcasts or other public content is created to help people with understanding how to navigate the modern landscape how county and perceptions, ideals, desires and needs have evolved over time. Some people are more fluid, some people are rigid, some people are fine doing their own thing and find success, others are seeking guidance. Those who seek guidance rely on this kind of information or knowledge to give them some kind of compass to help them. Some haven't found success, meanwhile others have and became more aware, reflective, and grew as people as a result. If you can't consider the sheer diversity of people that your comments can't/don't, apply to, then can you really say for sure that this does not hold any validity? I won't try to convince you, since you seem dead set on believing this won't work for you at all, however I will point out that you seem to be applying that logic across the board, speaking for people who are not you, don't think like you, or don't have your life experiences. I'm fully aware of the spectrum of people out there, those who find no use for this to be applied in their lives and think it's pointless, however, there are many who can and will find it helpful.. do you honestly speak for those people too?" Where did I say in any comment I've made that I was speaking for anyone other than myself? My personal experiences are my personal experiences and I don't have to assume how the people I mentioned, either think or act because they have told me in their own words. You have made the assumption that I have a narrow-minded approach to life which couldn't be further from the truth. I will put faith in life experience before I will in the words of those who have never walked in my shoes. I have gone through a decade of mental health issues and going round in circles and spinning my wheels trying to find the root cause was the very thing that kept me in the dark for 10 years. Once I realised that and stopped the analysis my issues disappeared completely. If there is a zebra crossing you don't need to keep dodging the traffic. I'm not dismissive of other people's experience but those are the reasons I'm dismissive of your proposal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️" Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates... " You've dodged the question twice, which probably speaks volumes, but I'll ask you again. Do you really believe that anyone will consciously apply your criteria in seeking a mate? Looking forward to your answer... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates... You've dodged the question twice, which probably speaks volumes, but I'll ask you again. Do you really believe that anyone will consciously apply your criteria in seeking a mate? Looking forward to your answer..." Well this is going round in circles and I now believe you're just baiting to troll since I did say twice now that I do believe people can and will apply this in their life after it's been refined and presented in a way that's accessible. So, enjoy being relegated to a mere observer 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread is like chatGPT Vs Google Gemini An hour played with the scores tightly poised at 1-1..." Lol who's who? Am I ChatGPT or Google Gemini? 😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️" Human romantic and sexual attraction just happens - and there's no formula for what will make two people click. On paper my spouse and I should not work but we really do. Are they the person I would have predicted I'd fall for, if I'd seen a list, like the one you produced? Probably not. You can try guess at the criteria, as above, but it's a waste of time. There are no formulae or algorithms that cover all human attraction. It's down to the X-factor, the je-ne-sais-quoi. End of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More or less along the lines of why I’m still single, and probably will continue to be. We’d like to think that long gone are the days of marriage etc as a woman’s only option. But I can’t help but feel a lot of people (including guys) will settle for less than a true match on all fronts for the sake of being in a relationship. There seems to be a massive amount of pressure on this being a factor of a successful life. Before anyone jumps on me for this statement, I’m not saying that the majority of you are not happy, just that I’m sure there are a lot out there who are only in a relationship because they don’t want to be on their own or feel its an important box to be ticked. Dating over the past few years really opened my eyes to just what I look for, and I came to the realisation that I’d rather be on my ownio than compromise for someone who isn’t my equal (not in a I’m better way, just as a match). I made my decision to come off dating apps for that reason. I just don’t need anyone and would rather use my time for me than searching for someone I don’t need. So I’d say there is a factor that has nothing to do with another person, and that’s your own drive to find a partner. Sorry if it’s been said above… on my lunch so didn’t have time to read every post!" This is exactly the kind of problem this framework can solve. For those who find themselves settling for relationships and ultimately becoming unsatisfied and unhappy within their relationships and sexual relations. Whether they find themselves in toxic and/or unfulfilling relationships. There's a major problem within society and dating from what I've observed and studied through countless stories and people's experiences, as well as numerous studies being conducted seeing the decline in marriage and people actively dating. While many academics and institutions try to find answers, present information and studies to highlight what the issues are, I find a lot of the information can be overwhelming for some, difficult to understand or even just using the wrong language that is understandable to a wider audience. While some make some valid points I find them getting bashed heavily because they've injected certain misguided or even harmful ideologies into their work that leaves them open to being easily discredited and largely ignored. I'd like to see something much simpler that invites reflection within the individual and then give them the tools to apply this framework that suits them and their priorities. It's good when I see people becoming more mindful about themselves and taking a step back when it comes to seeking a partner(s), as it eliminates opportunity for poor decision making or allowing toxic dynamics to unfold. You may be open to discovering a person in your life you match with, but that awareness and patience can lead to more fulfilling experiences and I encourage that wholeheartedly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... doing me a favour rather than what you think you're doing which is to dismiss and undermine it's value 🤷♂️" You have no idea what I think. That arrogance is stunning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've had a decent read and can form disagreement on or counter many of those points made. A couple of questions OP. How do you conduct your research ? What methodology do you use and why vs the alternatives. What is your working hypothesis and why? Without really knowing how and why you've got thus far, it's hard to evaluate the strengths or otherwise of your well intentioned writing. " My research is formed from learning and understanding other academic studies, discerning which information is most important and which is too specific or complex for the average person to incorporate in any way or try to observe in their daily lives. It's also reading a lot of people's stories and their experiences, talking to or listening to them to try to evaluate what information is valid and what is just anecdote or could be influenced by harmful ideologies. Actively listening and reading and being critical of the information I find is crucial to determining if its valid or not. There's also some reflection on my own experiences from the past, how things worked and what didn't work, and how I learned along the way. The reason why I do this instead of conducting studies with a set data group is the information is restricted to that group, by expanding my net and allowing any source of information the potential to bring new perspectives helps me consider many angles that may otherwise be missed. I also take a critical approach to academic studies because I find they can be singular and very deep in their approach when they discuss various topics, and often overlook other more important factors that should be considered. I understand that level of focus in very specific factors is helpful, but then that's all they focus on with their work. I like to keep an open mind, and apply some more out-of-the-box nuanced perspectives to gain a better understanding. Maslows hierarchy of needs, while valid in come contexts, doesn't particularly apply to the individual. A person can have varying well formed aspects of their lives, but struggle in others. It suggests people need to "level up" in order to achieve some kind of rigid standard. As far as a working hypothesis goes, successful relationships are built upon these core aspects in social interaction and relationship building, some more consciously than others. When they align the likelihood of success becomes greater. By providing a simple and open framework that doesn't try to categorise people into boxes, and allows for the fluid, complex and messy nature of human life and relationships, it can be applied in ways that allows people to find their own way in navigating todays modern landscape, as well as avoiding many of the rising issues we face. It also gives them the option to pick and choose what is most important to them without defining set rules or criteria that must be followed. Think of it more as a guide than a strict rule book. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... since I did say twice now that I do believe people can and will apply this in their life ... " The penny just dropped; you appear to believe that's what you said. Don't try to patronise me, youngster - you're not qualified. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... doing me a favour rather than what you think you're doing which is to dismiss and undermine it's value 🤷♂️ You have no idea what I think. That arrogance is stunning." Okay 🤷♂️🙂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Human romantic and sexual attraction just happens - and there's no formula for what will make two people click. On paper my spouse and I should not work but we really do. Are they the person I would have predicted I'd fall for, if I'd seen a list, like the one you produced? Probably not. You can try guess at the criteria, as above, but it's a waste of time. There are no formulae or algorithms that cover all human attraction. It's down to the X-factor, the je-ne-sais-quoi. End of." I agree 100% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll read it after it's been peer reviewed by relevant experts." And when he’s cited his sources | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll read it after it's been peer reviewed by relevant experts. And when he’s cited his sources" Don't hold your breath. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics." I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll read it after it's been peer reviewed by relevant experts. And when he’s cited his sources" If I aim to write this as part of a thesis for a doctoral dissertation or masters degree, I would make more effort to document the sources. Not to mention it would be impossible to cite the hundreds and hundreds of accounts from every day people telling their stories and experiences. However to name a particular source of mine is the Gottman Insitute, who have conducted many studies and published papers regarding relationship dynamics. Other sources of information is Jungian Archetypes, Attachment Theory by John Balby and Mary Ainsworth, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, just to name some other sources as forms of inspiration and considered information. Some more relevant than others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just go for those I think look hot. Probably explains why I'm single. " This is how the majority of people function tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics." Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appreciate your reply OP. You didn't answer any of the points I raised in any type of logical or coherent fashion. " Welcome to my world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics. Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in." Is this the longest scroll up reply in Fab history so far? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in." It's fine it was a bit of a long post for fabs standards and it wasn't easy trying to convey the overall message without making it too messy or long winded. I do appreciate the effort you put in with your response. Certainly found it more interesting than just "this is useless". The fact it got you thinking and exercising your own critical thinking is valuable. Which I encourage when reading any form of information that go deep into certain subjects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics. Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in. Is this the longest scroll up reply in Fab history so far?" Nope. This one is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics. Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in. Is this the longest scroll up reply in Fab history so far? Nope. This one is" Was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appreciate your reply OP. You didn't answer any of the points I raised in any type of logical or coherent fashion. Welcome to my world. " Maybe I would take you more seriously if you were respectful and didn't immediately jump to bashing with "do you seriously think anyone will consciously apply this?" Given that many people have and do consider applied psychology in their daily lives such as MBTI... Since you wanted to approach the matter without civility and complete disregard of what I do know, that may be greater than your own knowledge base which you havent shown me to be wrong, you're not going to get much out of me in terms of taking you seriously. Especially accusing me of arrogance yet calling me a youngster and patronising. I find it to be more arrogant to assume that because you're older than myself, that you somehow know better than me 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics. Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in. Is this the longest scroll up reply in Fab history so far? Nope. This one is Was." You're welcome  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I gave up at; "for this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded." ...This is Fab FFS, if anyone stumbled in all emotionally stabled and grounded-like, I'm sure it didnt take the rest of us long to fuck that up for them!! Jokes aside, was an interesting read, but not for me thanks OP, I need a fence to sit on and this appears all very conclusive." omg pmsl | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appreciate your reply OP. You didn't answer any of the points I raised in any type of logical or coherent fashion. Welcome to my world. Maybe I would take you more seriously if you were respectful and didn't immediately jump to bashing with "do you seriously think anyone will consciously apply this?" Given that many people have and do consider applied psychology in their daily lives such as MBTI... Since you wanted to approach the matter without civility and complete disregard of what I do know, that may be greater than your own knowledge base which you havent shown me to be wrong, you're not going to get much out of me in terms of taking you seriously. Especially accusing me of arrogance yet calling me a youngster and patronising. I find it to be more arrogant to assume that because you're older than myself, that you somehow know better than me 🤷♂️" Bashing? It was a completely serious question - which you seem to believe that you have answered, but haven't. I still think that there is little or no point to creating a set of criteria which - however much dumbed-down for accessibility - would never be used by 99.99% of people. Human relationships just don't work like that. If you enjoy such activity, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's anything more than an exercise in sesquipedalian intellectual masturbation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appreciate your reply OP. You didn't answer any of the points I raised in any type of logical or coherent fashion. Welcome to my world. Maybe I would take you more seriously if you were respectful and didn't immediately jump to bashing with "do you seriously think anyone will consciously apply this?" Given that many people have and do consider applied psychology in their daily lives such as MBTI... Since you wanted to approach the matter without civility and complete disregard of what I do know, that may be greater than your own knowledge base which you havent shown me to be wrong, you're not going to get much out of me in terms of taking you seriously. Especially accusing me of arrogance yet calling me a youngster and patronising. I find it to be more arrogant to assume that because you're older than myself, that you somehow know better than me 🤷♂️ Bashing? It was a completely serious question - which you seem to believe that you have answered, but haven't. I still think that there is little or no point to creating a set of criteria which - however much dumbed-down for accessibility - would never be used by 99.99% of people. Human relationships just don't work like that. If you enjoy such activity, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's anything more than an exercise in sesquipedalian intellectual masturbation." Whether you meant it as a serious question or not, the comments about intellectual masturbation tell me you're not worth taking seriously 🤷♂️ And since you seem so sure that 99.99% of people won't use it, go ahead and provide evidence for this, given that people have already said they'd only take it serious if I were to provide citation and sources. So, do please provide your sources for such as statement. I'll wait... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... Especially accusing me of arrogance yet calling me a youngster and patronising. I find it to be more arrogant to assume that because you're older than myself, that you somehow know better than me 🤷♂️" These remarks on arrogance brought to you by someone whose profile headline is... "Yes... I am HE" Any further comment would be superfluous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, OP, I commend you on the time and effort you've put into this. I certainly couldn't. " Which I appreciate, so thank you. I put a lot of time and effort into learning and studying many aspects of life. There's still so much I don't know despite the vast amount of information I've absorbed and dissected throughout my life. At least what I'm thankful for is not doing what a lot of young people did which was having kids at an early age, it's allowed me the time to learn and grow and incorporate many things into my life that have helped with my mental health and well being, making being decisions, crafting a future for myself. In the end my ultimate goal is just to help people wherever they need it however I can with the tools and knowledge I possess at any given time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... Especially accusing me of arrogance yet calling me a youngster and patronising. I find it to be more arrogant to assume that because you're older than myself, that you somehow know better than me 🤷♂️ These remarks on arrogance brought to you by someone whose profile headline is... "Yes... I am HE" Any further comment would be superfluous. " Lmao listen buddy, I've never seen you before since returning to the site, so I'm gonna educate on something. The purpose of that profile title is a subtle message to those in the forum who may recognise me. Nothing more. But nice try at making an attempt to find ammunition within my profile because you seem to be struggling for ways to bring me down 👏😂👏🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is going to be some nerdy stuff I'm about to go into and I'll try keep it as concise as possible to avoid making this too long. I've been working on some very deep subjects, spirituality, history, psychology, sociology, just to name a few. Effectively working on a comprehensive study of everything, or the big stuff at least anyway. One part I've always found very interesting, and relevant to this community is social and romantic dynamics. How do people find the right "mates"? Of course this site isn't about reproduction but our bodies are just doing the same thing they've always done for millenia. Social dynamics have changed due to the growing complexity of society as a whole which is why its important to have a greater awareness of these many nuances. From my research I've started working on a framework to better understand these dynamics and how we learn to navigate them to make better, more informed choices when selecting a partner(s). I've narrowed it done to some very fundamental criteria we as a species should consider when it comes to finding potential mates, whether they are short or long term, especially for the long term when relationships are involved. 1: Biological compatability - I feel like this should be the starting point for this framework. Since before language and a complex social structure were developed, we were still driven by our biology. Pheromones, playing a large role in mate selection. Ladies, ever wondered why some of you may get more male attention when you're ovulating? This is nature's way of showing men who are biologically compatible, and signalling to them that you are a suitable biological match. It's why kissing is so important, it's natures handshake to better confirm that you are a match when you both find each other's saliva, smell from their breath and skin, taste and smell appealling. If they taste or smell bad to you, it could suggest poor health, or a poor biological pairing. Ignoring this could likely lead to complications with reproduction and the offspring. As some of you know, some studies have found that biologically incompatible men can give women UTIs during unprotected sex. We as a society overall have largely forgotten how important this is and I don't feel there's enough awareness or emphasis on this. And while it is important that we consider visual physical appeal in terms of attraction, as you may have already wondered, it doesn't dictate if you and another person are biologically compatible. Further research needs to be done to assess if differences in hormones and DNA can be altered to suit a wider majority, though I believe this could be a possibility to take an educated guess. 2: Emotional compatibility - For this to work, one or both individuals must be emotionally stable and grounded. If both people are grounded, a functioning relationship is likely to be more successful. If the relationship is one sided, it depends on the intensity of those emotions which determines the success of that relationship. If the negative emotional side is stronger, the grounded individual may become destabilised themselves, or end the relationship out of preservation. If the emotionally grounded individual has stronger control of the dynamic, they can be more likely to raise the other individual to a higher emotionally regulated state. These individuals are nurturers. If both people are emotionally unstable, you will have a feedback loop which results in the gradual progression in intensity that causes many problems such interpersonal violence. Until this cycle breaks with the separation in that relationship. Now I will clarify that emotional instability isn't just about someone being aggressive and having emotional outbursts, it also deals with things like depression, loneliness, lack of purpose resulting in feeling lost, lack of respect and awareness of the individual, and trauma that causes many problems within an individual. These issues can hold them back in many facets of life, such as emotionally unstable or unaware people could say or do things that violate the emotional boundaries of another. 3: Intellectual compatibility (also includes emotional intelligence) - this doesn't just govern individuals being able to stimulate each other intellectually e.g. shared interests, capacity to learn and grow together etc. It also decides the success of the emotional dynamics as it involves things such as communication, respect, understanding and acceptance of different perspectives, problem solving skills and forward planning when dealing with personal conflicts. 4: Belief compatibility (including religion and value systems) - do you share the same beliefs? Can you agree to accept each other due to differing beliefs? (This is often reliant on intellectual and emotional compatibility). Are you able to learn new perspectives, or express yourself in a way that is respectful and does not infringe, violate or invalidate the beliefs of the other? 5: Social compatibility - do you share the same ambitions? Do you share compatible lifestyles? One individual may want a family and a quiet life, the other doesn't want a family and derives their social fulfillment through friendships and being more outgoing. This dynamic often won't work if other criteria are not sufficient enough such as belief, intellectual and emotional compatibility. It also governs aspects such as monetary and societal value. Often where a hierarchical structure is formed where individuals with greater social or monetary status are valued greater. This isn't a blanket that dictates everyone's beliefs. Many of you are in or have been in partnerships where gender roles are reversed. Tieing into emotional, intellectual and then belief compatibility, we may find couples who are more compatible and break older gender role models which leads to a more functional relationship. It's only when one or more of these factors begin to break down do we see this kind of partnership begin to fail, such as emotional instability. There has been a lot of emphasis within society dictating that only individuals with an already established social status and monetary value as being suitable partners, which doesn't account for the possibility that an individual may only just have started that journey to achieving social and monetary status. If these various dynamics in compatibility match up and create a good pairing, collaboration and success is easier to achieve together as a functioning unit. Thus the ability to provide for one another becomes guaranteed. Summary - I believe these should be the building blocks we should focus on as a society, and to try to educate ourselves better in understanding the many nuances involved with mate selection and social dynamics. While we all have a pretty good idea of these, more or less, and some people could do with better education before they jump to conclusions or allow past problems to dictate their actions in a negative way; I believe just giving these the proper consideration they deserve and developing a framework that suits us best on an individual scale will help us make more informed and better decisions in the future, which can lead to more fulfilling experiences, whether they are short or long term. It helps us gain a better understanding of our past relationships, what we could do better now and in the future, and give us the awareness and understanding that we are all different. This also helps people understand that the more restricted our criteria are such as our beliefs or even your physical preferencs, just to name a couple factors, will reduce our potential pool of suitable mates. Given that we live in such a complex society today with so many factors that come into play during social interactions and dynamics, we as a species need to keep up with this relentless change to better protect ourselves but also become better equipped to taking more positive actions. Being able to follow this framework in a more holistic and concise format, not just on a 1-to-1 basis but especially in a more open environment for swingers or even polyamorous dynamics inside or outside of committed relationships, allowing people to form stronger bonds and connections. We are no different to primate or other mammal social structures who use sex (and romantic and/or casual intimacy as human beings) to develop those social bonds and communities. So that's just my 2 cents. Huh... this wasn't such a short read in the end, oh well 🤷♂️ Your argument presents a well-thought-out framework for understanding romantic and social dynamics, but it also has several assumptions and generalizations that could be challenged. Here are some counterarguments: 1. Overemphasis on Biological Compatibility While biological compatibility (pheromones, genetics, immune system compatibility) plays a role in attraction and mate selection, its importance in modern relationships is often overstated. Many successful relationships thrive despite a lack of immediate biological attraction. Cultural influences, shared experiences, and emotional connections can often override biological impulses. Additionally, modern medicine and reproductive technology (IVF, hormone therapy, surrogacy, etc.) allow couples to work around biological incompatibilities. So, while biology is a factor, it shouldn't be the foundation of mate selection in the way you propose. 2. Emotional Compatibility Is More Complex Than Stability Your argument suggests that emotional stability is the key determinant of a successful relationship, but relationships are often more nuanced. Some emotionally "unstable" individuals (those with anxiety, depression, or trauma) can still have deeply fulfilling and successful partnerships, especially with the right support and communication. Relationships aren't always about stability—sometimes, growth through adversity strengthens bonds. Additionally, equating emotional instability with a lack of success in relationships ignores cultural and social factors. Some cultures or communities value emotional expression and volatility in ways that don't lead to "instability" in a negative sense but rather to a passionate and engaged relationship dynamic. 3. Intellectual Compatibility Can Be Subjective Intellectual compatibility is important, but its role varies between relationships. Some couples thrive on differing levels of intelligence or learning styles, complementing each other rather than requiring intellectual symmetry. Furthermore, emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence don’t always go hand in hand. Someone can be highly intellectual but lack emotional intelligence, making them poor at relationships despite shared interests. 4. Belief Compatibility Can Be Overcome While shared values and beliefs can strengthen a relationship, people from different backgrounds, religions, and worldviews can and do build lasting partnerships. Success in such relationships often comes from mutual respect and communication rather than having aligned beliefs from the start. Many interfaith and cross-cultural relationships succeed despite vast ideological differences, proving that belief compatibility is not an absolute requirement. 5. Social Compatibility Doesn’t Follow Fixed Rules You suggest that social compatibility is largely dictated by shared ambitions and hierarchical status, but many successful couples thrive despite mismatches in ambition, career goals, or social standing. Some people prefer partners who balance them out rather than mirror their aspirations. Moreover, the idea that only individuals with established status are seen as viable partners is a generalization. Many relationships form based on emotional depth, humor, personality, or other non-status-based factors. 6. The Role of Polyamory and Non-Traditional Relationships Is Overstated You argue that humans, like other mammals, use sex to form social bonds in complex structures, but this doesn’t necessarily justify polyamory or swinging as a widespread, natural dynamic. While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains the dominant relationship model across cultures, likely due to its evolutionary and social stability benefits. Suggesting that we are "no different" from other mammals in our social structures overlooks the cultural and psychological complexities that set humans apart. 7. The Framework Is Too Prescriptive While your framework attempts to create a structured approach to relationships, relationships are inherently dynamic and unpredictable. Reducing them to a checklist of compatibilities assumes a level of rationality that doesn't always exist in human attraction and bonding. People often fall in love unexpectedly, with partners who don’t "fit" their criteria, yet their relationships thrive due to emotional resilience, compromise, and mutual growth. Conclusion While your framework provides an interesting structure for analyzing Your framework offers an interesting approach to understanding relationships, but it makes several assumptions that can be challenged. Biological Compatibility Is Overstated – While attraction involves biology, successful relationships aren’t solely determined by pheromones or genetics. Emotional and social connections often override biological factors, and modern medicine allows couples to work around biological mismatches. Emotional Compatibility Is More Nuanced – Emotional stability is important, but many people with anxiety, depression, or trauma still maintain fulfilling relationships. Growth through challenges can strengthen bonds, and different cultures value emotional expression in various ways. Intellectual Compatibility Varies – Shared intellect isn’t always necessary. Some couples thrive on differences, balancing each other out. Intellectual and emotional intelligence don’t always align, meaning intelligence alone isn’t a key factor in success. Belief Differences Can Be Managed – While similar values can help, many interfaith and cross-cultural couples build strong relationships through mutual respect and understanding rather than perfect alignment. Social Compatibility Is Flexible – Relationships don’t always depend on shared ambitions or social status. Many people choose partners based on emotional connection rather than wealth, career success, or hierarchical standing. Polyamory Is Not Universally Preferred – While non-monogamy works for some, monogamy remains dominant across cultures, likely because of its stability. Human relationships are more complex than animal social structures. Relationships Don’t Follow a Formula – Reducing relationships to a checklist ignores the unpredictability of love. Many successful couples don’t "fit the mould" but thrive through emotional resilience, compromise, and growth. Conclusion Your framework provides structure, but it oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. Love and attraction often defy logic, making rigid selection criteria less practical in real-life dynamics. I think you may have largely misunderstood a lot of the context in these criteria as much of it does rely on acceptance of differences in each of them. The importance is how the individual assigns their own value to each of them. Much of what I wrote about gives the reader the option to question and reflect. I didn't in any way say that things such as intellectual compatibility required 2 individuals to match each other intellectually, rather it is down to the individual to consider if a partner is suitable for them in ways that are positive rather than negative. There can be overlap, there can be differences. What I talk about is how the individuals navigate these differences and if there's room for development, acceptance, collaboration etc. Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily need a partner to match my intelligence intellectually, however they can still possess the capacity and potential to learn from me. Likewise I am still open to learning from them as they may possess a particular mindset or perspective that can provide new ideas for me to learn. But again, regarding the way you suggest this being a rigid rule book that requires people to match each other equally in each of these criteria, that's not the case. It's meant to foster reflection, consideration, awareness, and more informed decision making. I do have a more indepth framework that addresses these issues you've raised and provides a more structured conceptual model for understanding, and that it's more fluid and open to varying dynamics. This is the very cut down version for the sake of trying to keep the original post shorter. I don't have a platform to post this document I have compiled, but the document I have put together does help dispel some of the concerns you've raised regarding your initial analysis on the assumption that these criteria are not fluid or allowing for the myriad of varying dynamics. Apologies if I misunderstood. There was a lot to take in. Is this the longest scroll up reply in Fab history so far? Nope. This one is" I was into your game in particular, that is why I added the 'so far' 😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You should look into sociograms and social capital metrics. Last year I worked for this client I ran tests on groups of people in large companies and how they interact and then mapped it using sociogram I took the metrics from individuals and groups. I also did myself. I’m the super collaborator & connector. I take small groups and join them up. I also find people that can work together and put them in pairs. None of this happens through organisation hierarchy is all through social networking. That's pretty interesting, I have found some things like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to be somewhat flimsy with its style of categorising people into boxes. I took that test myself and came up with different results 🤨 so I found it to be a bit inaccurate. The idea behind what I've been working on just gives people the tools for reflection to guide them to making more informed decisions. It's not like some kind of set of rules people must follow, rather it's more like a guide to get them thinking and apply it to their own lives in however that suits them." The MBTI and Hogan tests (bright side, darkside) are about your typical character & your derailers , they are human capital - they tend to be about 40% accurate and should not change over time. The social capital tests using sociograms are very different they analyses how we interact in real life , they are evidence based. They are about 60-70% accurate. I would normally do both and then a role play / simulation on top to get around 85% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also use a game called I developed called Johari Secrets that is based on Johari Window theory. It uncovers things you or others didn’t know about yourself and also reveals your stage - what you show to the world, your blind area - what others see and you don’t and your hidden area that you know about but keep secret " I haven't heard of that theory but looking into it, I find a lot of tests can be pretty inaccurate. Questions can be very dependant on circumstance, perceptions of others can be off-base, our current circumstances may influence an answer that doesn't necessarily reflect an individual as a whole. I find a more accurate reading of one's personality is just simple reflection and foresight, analysingones actions and discerning the nature of those actions. It's not exactly just anyone can do intensely as it does require a level of problem solving skills and a bit of intuition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a thing today that resonated for me. That monogamy is building your life around a relationship and that polyamory is building relationships around your life. That's definitely an interesting take. I've heard people being polyamorous is a reaction to the various boundaries/preferences they've developed through life, however those manifested through their lived experiences " I’ve found that those that are profoundly monogamous don’t understand and try to find holes in polyamory. Conversely polyamory is an understanding that polyamory is not a reaction to but rather an alternative to monogamy. Monogamy is actually a societal construct and a product of societal pressures and creation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a thing today that resonated for me. That monogamy is building your life around a relationship and that polyamory is building relationships around your life. That's definitely an interesting take. I've heard people being polyamorous is a reaction to the various boundaries/preferences they've developed through life, however those manifested through their lived experiences I’ve found that those that are profoundly monogamous don’t understand and try to find holes in polyamory. Conversely polyamory is an understanding that polyamory is not a reaction to but rather an alternative to monogamy. Monogamy is actually a societal construct and a product of societal pressures and creation " I feel like there's a lot of hole poking from both sides. I found myself surrounded by poly people during a social event and they were trying to convince me how monogamy was wrong, despite my own deep feelings on the matter. It felt very disrespectful since I won't try to convince poly people that their lifestyle is wrong. Since our society and human nature has become so complex there's a wide diversity among people. Though the idea that monogamy is a social construct doesn't necessarily make sense since you may argue that monogamous relationships were likely a thing since before antiquity. There's many other creatures on earth that have monogamous mate pairings so it wouldn't be so far fetched to believe that humans also can be monogamous and has nothing to do with insecurity. I just believe that lived experiences (and maybe some generational tendencies passed down) become the catalyst for an individuals sexual lifestyle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a thing today that resonated for me. That monogamy is building your life around a relationship and that polyamory is building relationships around your life. That's definitely an interesting take. I've heard people being polyamorous is a reaction to the various boundaries/preferences they've developed through life, however those manifested through their lived experiences I’ve found that those that are profoundly monogamous don’t understand and try to find holes in polyamory. Conversely polyamory is an understanding that polyamory is not a reaction to but rather an alternative to monogamy. Monogamy is actually a societal construct and a product of societal pressures and creation I feel like there's a lot of hole poking from both sides. I found myself surrounded by poly people during a social event and they were trying to convince me how monogamy was wrong, despite my own deep feelings on the matter. It felt very disrespectful since I won't try to convince poly people that their lifestyle is wrong. Since our society and human nature has become so complex there's a wide diversity among people. Though the idea that monogamy is a social construct doesn't necessarily make sense since you may argue that monogamous relationships were likely a thing since before antiquity. There's many other creatures on earth that have monogamous mate pairings so it wouldn't be so far fetched to believe that humans also can be monogamous and has nothing to do with insecurity. I just believe that lived experiences (and maybe some generational tendencies passed down) become the catalyst for an individuals sexual lifestyle" I think there's a simpler refutation. You can't know that being monogamous isn't innate to a person, without being that person. I agree it is deeply disrespectful to ignore the autonomy of a person, in such a way. I am firm believer in the adage: If you are so sure that you are right - why do you need me to agree with you? We can say monogamy is a social norm but not that it's a social construct. The conception that monogamy is the only ethical form of intimate partner relationship is socially constructed - that's a much fairer statement I think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very interesting read and equally interesting view of these social structures. To which I sincerely believe that all but 1 of your points are from a human nature point of view. In the sense that as a species we are so far removed from what we are supposed to be instinctively. We have developed these social constructs as a "civilised society". Which have nothing but negative connotations on us as a whole. These constructs have created. In my opinion everything that is wrong with society these days. Mental health, people not feeling of worth, people not feeling fulfilled ect. I believe that point 1. Is human nature in its purest form. We just have to look at every other species and how the find mates ect to prove this point. Every other point with the possible exception of religious belief compatibility is 100% social construct. I say this my simply looking at indigenous tribes and how they live. These people are as close to what humans were intended to be as possible. As with most other a animals it is purely about mating and keeping your DNA, lineage so to speak alive. Do you think for a second many of these people give a second thought to emotional, intellectual or social compatibility? I genuinely think not. However we as a "society" have created these shall we say hurdles. That do nothing but to hold people back and 'stay in their lane" so to speak. These barriers cause massive divide in society and potentially stop 2 ppl who are a hypothetical "perfect match" from ever giving one another the chance to see this. Due to what outside others may think. That's my 2 cents. For what it is worth. Lol " You make a very valid point about biological compatibility, while it's a subject I need to research more extensively, and was challenged by my friend who discredited it based on my lack of medical PhD, I would agree that you simply need to look at other animals to gain a simple understandings in the validity of this hypothesis for biological compatibility. To put it simply, why wouldn't the human body naturally seek out compatible mates to produce healthy offspring? Our bodies are far more intuitive than we give them credit for, and the hubris in believing that we know better through scientific research often leads to oversight. You can tell me all day why a person may be born with genetic defects, but then if they were to simply look deeper into it, did that couple match in terms of their DNA? Was there some kind of difference that allowed a greater likelihood for a genetic mutation to occur? While things like pheromones aren't 100% perfect, I would argue that a more compatible pairing is far less likelihood to produce children who may be susceptible to developing some kind of ailment or defect whether through gestation or later on in life. As far as social constructs go, while it would be nice to do away with certain things, it simply can't work in today's society or the future given how much has changed over thousands of years. The idea for this framework is navigate that change in a more positive and healthy manner. You're right in observing that many constructs have become very harmful to an individuals well being, dating apps are an absolute plague. People complain abiut them, yet still use them. They're addicted to that thrill of choice and excitement of "the next best thing". The short form content and limited information doesn't do anyone any good and leads to serious issues. Granted, fab can be no different, and I here I am using it. However I feel Fabs openness with messaging, profile building, the forum, offer a more informative stage for meeting new people and expressing ourselves. There is also the other site that shall not be named. Different formats but similar open use that don't lock many features behind pay walls. I have often thought about the fact that many people have very likely passed up people may be considered "perfect matches", but one or both people walked away based on some misinformed perception, however that was influenced. By helping people become more mindful, it could lead to far greater human connection to help people feel more fulfilled and valued in a fast paced world where those who struggle or get too sucked into the narratives suffer needlessly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a thing today that resonated for me. That monogamy is building your life around a relationship and that polyamory is building relationships around your life. That's definitely an interesting take. I've heard people being polyamorous is a reaction to the various boundaries/preferences they've developed through life, however those manifested through their lived experiences I’ve found that those that are profoundly monogamous don’t understand and try to find holes in polyamory. Conversely polyamory is an understanding that polyamory is not a reaction to but rather an alternative to monogamy. Monogamy is actually a societal construct and a product of societal pressures and creation I feel like there's a lot of hole poking from both sides. I found myself surrounded by poly people during a social event and they were trying to convince me how monogamy was wrong, despite my own deep feelings on the matter. It felt very disrespectful since I won't try to convince poly people that their lifestyle is wrong. Since our society and human nature has become so complex there's a wide diversity among people. Though the idea that monogamy is a social construct doesn't necessarily make sense since you may argue that monogamous relationships were likely a thing since before antiquity. There's many other creatures on earth that have monogamous mate pairings so it wouldn't be so far fetched to believe that humans also can be monogamous and has nothing to do with insecurity. I just believe that lived experiences (and maybe some generational tendencies passed down) become the catalyst for an individuals sexual lifestyle I think there's a simpler refutation. You can't know that being monogamous isn't innate to a person, without being that person. I agree it is deeply disrespectful to ignore the autonomy of a person, in such a way. I am firm believer in the adage: If you are so sure that you are right - why do you need me to agree with you? We can say monogamy is a social norm but not that it's a social construct. The conception that monogamy is the only ethical form of intimate partner relationship is socially constructed - that's a much fairer statement I think. " I agree with the statement that monogamy is a social norm. If people gravitate to that naturally, is that really a construct through conditioning, or just how they as an individual feel more aligned with? The way I see it, if people who are poly find greater satisfaction and fulfillment with that way of life, that's their choice, and they need to respect those who prefer to be monogamous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree with the statement that monogamy is a social norm. If people gravitate to that naturally, is that really a construct through conditioning, or just how they as an individual feel more aligned with? The way I see it, if people who are poly find greater satisfaction and fulfillment with that way of life, that's their choice, and they need to respect those who prefer to be monogamous." In my experience those that are poly or ENM very rarely challenge or disrespect those that choose to be monogamous. When the shoe is on the other foot however....... As for is monogamy a social norm due to conditioning or just personal choice? 100% the former in my mind, much of it down to religion. There's plenty ty of research that's been done online to argue this. And as for your comment on monogamy being widespread in the world and other species.... "it is far less prevalent in nature than perceived: from the approximately 4000 mammal species on Earth, less than five percent practice any form of monogamy. Even among humans, as Professor Roger Rubin’s research shows, only 43 (of 238 societies across the world) are monogamous." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree with the statement that monogamy is a social norm. If people gravitate to that naturally, is that really a construct through conditioning, or just how they as an individual feel more aligned with? The way I see it, if people who are poly find greater satisfaction and fulfillment with that way of life, that's their choice, and they need to respect those who prefer to be monogamous. In my experience those that are poly or ENM very rarely challenge or disrespect those that choose to be monogamous. When the shoe is on the other foot however....... As for is monogamy a social norm due to conditioning or just personal choice? 100% the former in my mind, much of it down to religion. There's plenty ty of research that's been done online to argue this. And as for your comment on monogamy being widespread in the world and other species.... "it is far less prevalent in nature than perceived: from the approximately 4000 mammal species on Earth, less than five percent practice any form of monogamy. Even among humans, as Professor Roger Rubin’s research shows, only 43 (of 238 societies across the world) are monogamous."" I've mentioned this experience to a poly friend of mine and they weren't happy about what I experienced, but it was a surprising thing to witness since I've seen a lot of poly people have been upset over the shaming from monogamous people. I feel like the environment and group allowed them to subconsciously find an easy target to project that shaming onto me for being monogamous 🤷♂️ if that's the case, it doesn't actually surprise me Bringing religion into this is a difficult topic since there's a lot of prejudice and a lot of specifically targeted "research" to discredit it's validity. I can't in good conscience take them seriously as they can be heavily influenced by people with prejudiced views. I can allow some room with an open mind to consider a certain view point and go through my own thought processes to consider the pro of the argument. Sure, to a degree, humans could naturally be poly, which then requires what defines polyamory. Is it defined by our relationship status at any given time? Or across our lives? As I've seen it argued that we are all polyamorous as we have multiple partners in our lives, and one can only be monogamous for having 1 partner only through their entire life. I can also consider generational conditioning. From a psychological stand point, what becomes instinctual to an individual is what has been handed down through each generation. There's been plenty of research conducted on this. So would encouraging and influencing polyamory in society be undoing this conditioning, both societal and generational, to bring humans back into a more original state of being? From just a quick search online for studies, and considering that these are limited to western data groups, and other factors such definitions of what monogamy is, it suggests that monogamy is widespread within society. The fact that more mammalian species are not monogamous isn't a valid indicator that we cannot be monogamous. It just says monogamy isn't widespread amongst mother nature as a whole. I made the observation in my post that mammals can and do use sex to form social bonds and strengthen group cohesion, which has been observed and studied, likewise, it can be applied to human relationship building and strengthening bonds. I do get the impression however that you describing monogamy as a societal norm through conditioning as a result of religion and not a biological default, suggests to me that view point holds monogamy in a negative light. Suggesting that it's biologically wrong, therefore should be considered wrong for society. That's the impression I get, though I'm open to being corrected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree with the statement that monogamy is a social norm. If people gravitate to that naturally, is that really a construct through conditioning, or just how they as an individual feel more aligned with? The way I see it, if people who are poly find greater satisfaction and fulfillment with that way of life, that's their choice, and they need to respect those who prefer to be monogamous. In my experience those that are poly or ENM very rarely challenge or disrespect those that choose to be monogamous. When the shoe is on the other foot however....... As for is monogamy a social norm due to conditioning or just personal choice? 100% the former in my mind, much of it down to religion. There's plenty ty of research that's been done online to argue this. And as for your comment on monogamy being widespread in the world and other species.... "it is far less prevalent in nature than perceived: from the approximately 4000 mammal species on Earth, less than five percent practice any form of monogamy. Even among humans, as Professor Roger Rubin’s research shows, only 43 (of 238 societies across the world) are monogamous." I've mentioned this experience to a poly friend of mine and they weren't happy about what I experienced, but it was a surprising thing to witness since I've seen a lot of poly people have been upset over the shaming from monogamous people. I feel like the environment and group allowed them to subconsciously find an easy target to project that shaming onto me for being monogamous 🤷♂️ if that's the case, it doesn't actually surprise me Bringing religion into this is a difficult topic since there's a lot of prejudice and a lot of specifically targeted "research" to discredit it's validity. I can't in good conscience take them seriously as they can be heavily influenced by people with prejudiced views. I can allow some room with an open mind to consider a certain view point and go through my own thought processes to consider the pro of the argument. Sure, to a degree, humans could naturally be poly, which then requires what defines polyamory. Is it defined by our relationship status at any given time? Or across our lives? As I've seen it argued that we are all polyamorous as we have multiple partners in our lives, and one can only be monogamous for having 1 partner only through their entire life. I can also consider generational conditioning. From a psychological stand point, what becomes instinctual to an individual is what has been handed down through each generation. There's been plenty of research conducted on this. So would encouraging and influencing polyamory in society be undoing this conditioning, both societal and generational, to bring humans back into a more original state of being? From just a quick search online for studies, and considering that these are limited to western data groups, and other factors such definitions of what monogamy is, it suggests that monogamy is widespread within society. The fact that more mammalian species are not monogamous isn't a valid indicator that we cannot be monogamous. It just says monogamy isn't widespread amongst mother nature as a whole. I made the observation in my post that mammals can and do use sex to form social bonds and strengthen group cohesion, which has been observed and studied, likewise, it can be applied to human relationship building and strengthening bonds. I do get the impression however that you describing monogamy as a societal norm through conditioning as a result of religion and not a biological default, suggests to me that view point holds monogamy in a negative light. Suggesting that it's biologically wrong, therefore should be considered wrong for society. That's the impression I get, though I'm open to being corrected." Nope. I view monogamy as the right choice for the right people, the same as I do for polyamory/ENM relationships. If you want to go down the biological rabbit hole, historically people weren't monogamous often in order to populate. Whether that be primitive man, as a means of population control through invasions or new settlements, or to grow a particular segment of society. I have no horse in this race. I do what I do, and am happy for others to do the same whatever their choice. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree with the statement that monogamy is a social norm. If people gravitate to that naturally, is that really a construct through conditioning, or just how they as an individual feel more aligned with? The way I see it, if people who are poly find greater satisfaction and fulfillment with that way of life, that's their choice, and they need to respect those who prefer to be monogamous. In my experience those that are poly or ENM very rarely challenge or disrespect those that choose to be monogamous. When the shoe is on the other foot however....... As for is monogamy a social norm due to conditioning or just personal choice? 100% the former in my mind, much of it down to religion. There's plenty ty of research that's been done online to argue this. And as for your comment on monogamy being widespread in the world and other species.... "it is far less prevalent in nature than perceived: from the approximately 4000 mammal species on Earth, less than five percent practice any form of monogamy. Even among humans, as Professor Roger Rubin’s research shows, only 43 (of 238 societies across the world) are monogamous." I've mentioned this experience to a poly friend of mine and they weren't happy about what I experienced, but it was a surprising thing to witness since I've seen a lot of poly people have been upset over the shaming from monogamous people. I feel like the environment and group allowed them to subconsciously find an easy target to project that shaming onto me for being monogamous 🤷♂️ if that's the case, it doesn't actually surprise me Bringing religion into this is a difficult topic since there's a lot of prejudice and a lot of specifically targeted "research" to discredit it's validity. I can't in good conscience take them seriously as they can be heavily influenced by people with prejudiced views. I can allow some room with an open mind to consider a certain view point and go through my own thought processes to consider the pro of the argument. Sure, to a degree, humans could naturally be poly, which then requires what defines polyamory. Is it defined by our relationship status at any given time? Or across our lives? As I've seen it argued that we are all polyamorous as we have multiple partners in our lives, and one can only be monogamous for having 1 partner only through their entire life. I can also consider generational conditioning. From a psychological stand point, what becomes instinctual to an individual is what has been handed down through each generation. There's been plenty of research conducted on this. So would encouraging and influencing polyamory in society be undoing this conditioning, both societal and generational, to bring humans back into a more original state of being? From just a quick search online for studies, and considering that these are limited to western data groups, and other factors such definitions of what monogamy is, it suggests that monogamy is widespread within society. The fact that more mammalian species are not monogamous isn't a valid indicator that we cannot be monogamous. It just says monogamy isn't widespread amongst mother nature as a whole. I made the observation in my post that mammals can and do use sex to form social bonds and strengthen group cohesion, which has been observed and studied, likewise, it can be applied to human relationship building and strengthening bonds. I do get the impression however that you describing monogamy as a societal norm through conditioning as a result of religion and not a biological default, suggests to me that view point holds monogamy in a negative light. Suggesting that it's biologically wrong, therefore should be considered wrong for society. That's the impression I get, though I'm open to being corrected. Nope. I view monogamy as the right choice for the right people, the same as I do for polyamory/ENM relationships. If you want to go down the biological rabbit hole, historically people weren't monogamous often in order to populate. Whether that be primitive man, as a means of population control through invasions or new settlements, or to grow a particular segment of society. I have no horse in this race. I do what I do, and am happy for others to do the same whatever their choice. 🤷♂️" Fair enough, however even if we consider that from a prehistoric view point and only taking in biology as an indicator. While it says that we as human are polyamorous, which would still be practiced today, and is the cause of sexual infidelity, we are a complex society and I feel that anyone who tries to argue that monogamy is wrong is just completely ignoring many factors that govern us as humans being in modern society | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read a thing today that resonated for me. That monogamy is building your life around a relationship and that polyamory is building relationships around your life. That's definitely an interesting take. I've heard people being polyamorous is a reaction to the various boundaries/preferences they've developed through life, however those manifested through their lived experiences I’ve found that those that are profoundly monogamous don’t understand and try to find holes in polyamory. Conversely polyamory is an understanding that polyamory is not a reaction to but rather an alternative to monogamy. Monogamy is actually a societal construct and a product of societal pressures and creation I feel like there's a lot of hole poking from both sides. I found myself surrounded by poly people during a social event and they were trying to convince me how monogamy was wrong, despite my own deep feelings on the matter. It felt very disrespectful since I won't try to convince poly people that their lifestyle is wrong. Since our society and human nature has become so complex there's a wide diversity among people. Though the idea that monogamy is a social construct doesn't necessarily make sense since you may argue that monogamous relationships were likely a thing since before antiquity. There's many other creatures on earth that have monogamous mate pairings so it wouldn't be so far fetched to believe that humans also can be monogamous and has nothing to do with insecurity. I just believe that lived experiences (and maybe some generational tendencies passed down) become the catalyst for an individuals sexual lifestyle I think there's a simpler refutation. You can't know that being monogamous isn't innate to a person, without being that person. I agree it is deeply disrespectful to ignore the autonomy of a person, in such a way. I am firm believer in the adage: If you are so sure that you are right - why do you need me to agree with you? We can say monogamy is a social norm but not that it's a social construct. The conception that monogamy is the only ethical form of intimate partner relationship is socially constructed - that's a much fairer statement I think. I agree with the statement that monogamy is a social norm. If people gravitate to that naturally, is that really a construct through conditioning, or just how they as an individual feel more aligned with? The way I see it, if people who are poly find greater satisfaction and fulfillment with that way of life, that's their choice, and they need to respect those who prefer to be monogamous." Congruence between a person's self-concept and organismic self is specific to that individual, which is why I agree with you that people ought to respect others right to self-determination, self-identification and autonomy of mind. I think it's simply a false dichotomy to say which is 'natural' it's entirely plausible that both are equally natural and in any case an appeal to nature - to say something is natural. It doesn't automatically give something greater truth value just because it is natural. In the same sense as saying that monogamy is good because that's how society has been historically is an appeal to tradition or even argumentum ad populum. Or to believe because you are poly and a person therefore all people are poly is a composition fallacy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry too long to read but to me Romance and love isn't about logic . Infact the best love stories are usually filled with reasons why it shouldn't be ..yet love prevails. " I can anecdotally testify to the the truth of this statement as a consequence of my phenomenological experience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry too long to read but to me Romance and love isn't about logic . Infact the best love stories are usually filled with reasons why it shouldn't be ..yet love prevails. " The reasons for those could, to a degree, be quantified through analysis. Even when it merely boils down to aesthetic attraction, people with their preferences can find attraction through certain facial structures, body types etc. which could be influenced through senses of familiarity or influenced desire e.g. a certain look or aesthetic that ignites a physical response due to adolescent idealism. Or when it comes to what's inside, personality, there's a basis for the saying "opposites attract", where an individual can spark your sense of curiosity and intrigue. And then building on that, a mutual connection through communication styles, playfulness, and even calming or relaxing attitudes. I've also considered, and this is more to do with listening to the others voice, and something I'd like to research more into, a persons voice and the harmonic resonance in their tones can have a calming effect. A friend of mine has a cat who almost always shows up and sits by them when a particular friend of ours is present and talks. I'm wondering if theirs something in their voice that my friends cat find appealing. There is a mind boggling number of factors that come into play that create attraction. While for many of you, you don't try to or care to understand all of this. For me, I find it extremely fascinating | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm annoyed with myself and embarrassed for missing the flags - topic obsession, detail passion, lack of empathy, inability to read nuance etc. - and failing to recognise probable HFA. Mea culpa." Yeah, I'm extremely high functioning autistic. Asperges to be specific. As far as lack of empathy goes however, bit of an assumption. I've often found myself balling my eyes out seeing videos on social media that tugged hard on my heart strings. Lack of empathy is subjective to the individual. Some of us are more capable than others. Respect for the observation and correction in your approach 🙏 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm annoyed with myself and embarrassed for missing the flags - topic obsession, detail passion, lack of empathy, inability to read nuance etc. - and failing to recognise probable HFA. Mea culpa. Yeah, I'm extremely high functioning autistic. Asperges to be specific. As far as lack of empathy goes however, bit of an assumption. I've often found myself balling my eyes out seeing videos on social media that tugged hard on my heart strings. Lack of empathy is subjective to the individual. Some of us are more capable than others. Respect for the observation and correction in your approach 🙏" I will also add, ability to read nuance is part of my hyperfocus when being detail oriented. I consider both or all possibilities, and then I go deeper into the further nuances, and then deeper, and then deeper, and so on. I pride myself in that ability to be understanding as much as possible. Not to be a people pleaser, but rather to gain an even greater understanding of the dynamics at play | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very interesting read and equally interesting view of these social structures. To which I sincerely believe that all but 1 of your points are from a human nature point of view. In the sense that as a species we are so far removed from what we are supposed to be instinctively. We have developed these social constructs as a "civilised society". Which have nothing but negative connotations on us as a whole. These constructs have created. In my opinion everything that is wrong with society these days. Mental health, people not feeling of worth, people not feeling fulfilled ect. I believe that point 1. Is human nature in its purest form. We just have to look at every other species and how the find mates ect to prove this point. Every other point with the possible exception of religious belief compatibility is 100% social construct. I say this my simply looking at indigenous tribes and how they live. These people are as close to what humans were intended to be as possible. As with most other a animals it is purely about mating and keeping your DNA, lineage so to speak alive. Do you think for a second many of these people give a second thought to emotional, intellectual or social compatibility? I genuinely think not. However we as a "society" have created these shall we say hurdles. That do nothing but to hold people back and 'stay in their lane" so to speak. These barriers cause massive divide in society and potentially stop 2 ppl who are a hypothetical "perfect match" from ever giving one another the chance to see this. Due to what outside others may think. That's my 2 cents. For what it is worth. Lol You make a very valid point about biological compatibility, while it's a subject I need to research more extensively, and was challenged by my friend who discredited it based on my lack of medical PhD, I would agree that you simply need to look at other animals to gain a simple understandings in the validity of this hypothesis for biological compatibility. To put it simply, why wouldn't the human body naturally seek out compatible mates to produce healthy offspring? Our bodies are far more intuitive than we give them credit for, and the hubris in believing that we know better through scientific research often leads to oversight. You can tell me all day why a person may be born with genetic defects, but then if they were to simply look deeper into it, did that couple match in terms of their DNA? Was there some kind of difference that allowed a greater likelihood for a genetic mutation to occur? While things like pheromones aren't 100% perfect, I would argue that a more compatible pairing is far less likelihood to produce children who may be susceptible to developing some kind of ailment or defect whether through gestation or later on in life. As far as social constructs go, while it would be nice to do away with certain things, it simply can't work in today's society or the future given how much has changed over thousands of years. The idea for this framework is navigate that change in a more positive and healthy manner. You're right in observing that many constructs have become very harmful to an individuals well being, dating apps are an absolute plague. People complain abiut them, yet still use them. They're addicted to that thrill of choice and excitement of "the next best thing". The short form content and limited information doesn't do anyone any good and leads to serious issues. Granted, fab can be no different, and I here I am using it. However I feel Fabs openness with messaging, profile building, the forum, offer a more informative stage for meeting new people and expressing ourselves. There is also the other site that shall not be named. Different formats but similar open use that don't lock many features behind pay walls. I have often thought about the fact that many people have very likely passed up people may be considered "perfect matches", but one or both people walked away based on some misinformed perception, however that was influenced. By helping people become more mindful, it could lead to far greater human connection to help people feel more fulfilled and valued in a fast paced world where those who struggle or get too sucked into the narratives suffer needlessly." OK so correct me if I'm wrong here. You agree that biological compatibility through ie pheromones ect is in its most primitive form ie. How nature intended. Is an effective way for selecting the correct partner? If so. Do we believe that these pheromones can give any inclinations of potential flaws within potential partners genetic makeup? Which would cause these mutations that you mention. If so then. Why do we see mutations in nature when this "system" is used by almost all animal species but humans and plant life to select partners? On the note of compatible pairing and avoiding mutations. I wonder how you would suggest without the intervention of science we find this biological compatibility when selecting a partner? It also has me beg the question. Why can 2 "little people" produce "normal" sized humans. Surely the flaw in their DNA would by your "framework" suggest that they would produce "mutated" offspring no? Again correct me if I've misunderstood. You also mention that through the influence of misinformed perception people walk away from each other. Then conclude that mindfulness may lead to far better human connections. This is can agree with. However. You mention social constructs and although it would be nice to do away with some of them. It is not possible in today's society. Surely this is contradictory to being more mindful as social constructs have caused the misinformation of perception to influence each other? Again correct me if I'm wrong. I feel you are basing all your "framework" on a westernised Christian society. While other religions in other "societies" have a completely different attitude and cultural "norms" to what you are suggesting has been changed to the point of no return in our society. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to revert back to the days when we weren't held back by the social constructs we have imposed on ourselves? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK so correct me if I'm wrong here. You agree that biological compatibility through ie pheromones ect is in its most primitive form ie. How nature intended. Is an effective way for selecting the correct partner? If so. Do we believe that these pheromones can give any inclinations of potential flaws within potential partners genetic makeup? Which would cause these mutations that you mention. If so then. Why do we see mutations in nature when this "system" is used by almost all animal species but humans and plant life to select partners? On the note of compatible pairing and avoiding mutations. I wonder how you would suggest without the intervention of science we find this biological compatibility when selecting a partner? It also has me beg the question. Why can 2 "little people" produce "normal" sized humans. Surely the flaw in their DNA would by your "framework" suggest that they would produce "mutated" offspring no? Again correct me if I've misunderstood. You also mention that through the influence of misinformed perception people walk away from each other. Then conclude that mindfulness may lead to far better human connections. This is can agree with. However. You mention social constructs and although it would be nice to do away with some of them. It is not possible in today's society. Surely this is contradictory to being more mindful as social constructs have caused the misinformation of perception to influence each other? Again correct me if I'm wrong. I feel you are basing all your "framework" on a westernised Christian society. While other religions in other "societies" have a completely different attitude and cultural "norms" to what you are suggesting has been changed to the point of no return in our society. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to revert back to the days when we weren't held back by the social constructs we have imposed on ourselves? " From a simple perspective, why would any biological species reproduce with a biological match? To produce healthy offspring to further the continuation of the species. That would be a biological imperative for the species to thrive. Now considering genetic mutations within other species, this can be linked to varying factors such as their availability of that species within their habitat. More abundance provides more opportunity for matches to seek each other out. I can consider the possibility that this limitation with certain species is less of a problem. While others it could be, hence the need for greater numbers. There is also a spectrum to absolutely everything, as these mutations can simply be caused by some kind of environmental factor affecting the physiology of the barer of offspring (I can't say female as there are species where the male is actually the parent who gives birth to the offspring). But this can go extremely deep due to the mind boggling number of environmental factors that can cause these. However, a living organisms biological imperative which is built into its genetic code is to seek out the best possible biological match to reproduce, if a "perfect" match cannot be found, it seeks the next match, and so on. While mutations are inevitable, seeking a closer biological match makes these undesirable mutations less likely. This is what we see becoming an issue with us as human beings with our complex society, biology is left at the way side and social constructs become the leading factor in mate selection. As for 2 "little people" leading to a person being born who is of average size can be how their genetics naturally are, however the parents may have suffered from failure to nurture. For instance I'm not as big or broad as I should be like my father, not height as I am taller than my father who is 5'11. However I had failure to nurture when growing as a child due to neglect, I didn't get the nutrients and minerals I needed for my growth. Like how a plant grows to the size of its pot, but the exact same plant species in a larger pot, with more nutrients and minerals grows larger. The genetics are there, but the nurturing of the offspring is crucial to growth, it's not entirely down to genetics. This failure to nurture can affect someone's overall size and/or height, as well as other factors within that person's physiology. Now to address what you said about social constructs, this isn't based in Christian western society. Any society from any part of the world follows what is effectively a social construct that was developed and adapted over time. However we can see many people in partnerships who are Muslim and Christian, Buddhist and atheist. I'm addressing the psychological aspect where individuals reflect on their ability to accept each other's differences. And if acceptance isn't possible such as religious beliefs, an individual then gains the awareness that their dating pool has a limitation, depending on the number of limitations, the dating pool reflects that. If it's simply casual hookups, this becomes less of an issue depending on the importance of that criteria. I have no problem having sex with a woman who was a practicing Muslim, I don't have to live by those cultural traditions, however it would be down to me to accept that difference to simply sleep with them. If someone only wanted to have sex with other people sharing their same religious belief, that therefore limits their options. The point of the framework is about facilitating reflection and awareness for an individual. I've often seen people say they won't associate with particular individuals who hold a certain political belief. Okay, so that limits their options. At the same time it creates awareness for the individual to understand they themselves may not fit certain criteria, therefore they cannot expect to fit within someone's desired criteria. We can't go back to how things were when we were mere hunter gatherer tribes. So this framework is designed to function within such a complex society to help people become more aware of theirs and others differences, and to help them navigate this landscape in a way they can understand what's important to them, what's important to other people, how to assess a new connection that is made or even to evaluate a current one like a 2 year long relationship in which issues may have arisen, and then determining the sustainability of that relationship. It's not about creating a rulebook and enforcing it, and it's not about just sacrificing ones desires to simply increase chances or options in finding and maintaining a partnership whether it's short or long term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also use a game called I developed called Johari Secrets that is based on Johari Window theory. It uncovers things you or others didn’t know about yourself and also reveals your stage - what you show to the world, your blind area - what others see and you don’t and your hidden area that you know about but keep secret I haven't heard of that theory but looking into it, I find a lot of tests can be pretty inaccurate. Questions can be very dependant on circumstance, perceptions of others can be off-base, our current circumstances may influence an answer that doesn't necessarily reflect an individual as a whole. I find a more accurate reading of one's personality is just simple reflection and foresight, analysingones actions and discerning the nature of those actions. It's not exactly just anyone can do intensely as it does require a level of problem solving skills and a bit of intuition." Psychometrics is science , there are measures built in to validate the tests, the good ones are very hard to trick. There are also calibration and standardisation over 10’s millions of data sets. Then you add odd simulations and other types of activities and if they are all consistent The items are open source so as long long as they are used it’s safe. This is why the top companies pay for it. Your understanding is mostly based on not knowing how they work or maybe using bad free tests on the internet . Have you taken the Hogan brightside & Datkside ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also use a game called I developed called Johari Secrets that is based on Johari Window theory. It uncovers things you or others didn’t know about yourself and also reveals your stage - what you show to the world, your blind area - what others see and you don’t and your hidden area that you know about but keep secret I haven't heard of that theory but looking into it, I find a lot of tests can be pretty inaccurate. Questions can be very dependant on circumstance, perceptions of others can be off-base, our current circumstances may influence an answer that doesn't necessarily reflect an individual as a whole. I find a more accurate reading of one's personality is just simple reflection and foresight, analysingones actions and discerning the nature of those actions. It's not exactly just anyone can do intensely as it does require a level of problem solving skills and a bit of intuition. Psychometrics is science , there are measures built in to validate the tests, the good ones are very hard to trick. There are also calibration and standardisation over 10’s millions of data sets. Then you add odd simulations and other types of activities and if they are all consistent The items are open source so as long long as they are used it’s safe. This is why the top companies pay for it. Your understanding is mostly based on not knowing how they work or maybe using bad free tests on the internet . Have you taken the Hogan brightside & Datkside ?" I do NOT use those online tests, they're obviously terrible. I observe human behaviour in the real world and analyse it through the information and knowledge I've gained from listening to psychologists who researched these psychometrics. Are you seriously going to try invalidate what I've written by making a poorly formed judgement by stating I use those ridiculous tests? 🤦♂️ if you understand such tests so well, then surely you understand you just used a poorly informed judgement since you know very little about me or my life. And you should then understand where judgement stems from. Notice how I haven't questioned your knowledge? 🤔 that would be a poor move on my part to make such an assumption... I haven't taken the test myself, I've applied jungian shadow work in understanding my dark side. Instead of taking tests I refer to simply reflecting on actions or thoughts and boiling them down to negative or positive emotions, and understanding where they stem from, whether they're negative or positive experiences. Emotions are generally a very good indicator for determining which is negative or positive. We were still human beings before psychometrics were even a thing and we still acted and behaved the same way. Many psychologists before having access to such data sets relied on other forms of understanding human psychology, and much of their work is still used today. I prefer to use this form of analysis than getting too bogged down in heavy data. While the data is there and valid, it just shows numbers, it doesn't answer WHY? We can spend an exorbitant amount of time reading into data but it doesn't seek to answer questions for the origins of specific interactions, they're just results from data input. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK so correct me if I'm wrong here. You agree that biological compatibility through ie pheromones ect is in its most primitive form ie. How nature intended. Is an effective way for selecting the correct partner? If so. Do we believe that these pheromones can give any inclinations of potential flaws within potential partners genetic makeup? Which would cause these mutations that you mention. If so then. Why do we see mutations in nature when this "system" is used by almost all animal species but humans and plant life to select partners? On the note of compatible pairing and avoiding mutations. I wonder how you would suggest without the intervention of science we find this biological compatibility when selecting a partner? It also has me beg the question. Why can 2 "little people" produce "normal" sized humans. Surely the flaw in their DNA would by your "framework" suggest that they would produce "mutated" offspring no? Again correct me if I've misunderstood. You also mention that through the influence of misinformed perception people walk away from each other. Then conclude that mindfulness may lead to far better human connections. This is can agree with. However. You mention social constructs and although it would be nice to do away with some of them. It is not possible in today's society. Surely this is contradictory to being more mindful as social constructs have caused the misinformation of perception to influence each other? Again correct me if I'm wrong. I feel you are basing all your "framework" on a westernised Christian society. While other religions in other "societies" have a completely different attitude and cultural "norms" to what you are suggesting has been changed to the point of no return in our society. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to revert back to the days when we weren't held back by the social constructs we have imposed on ourselves? From a simple perspective, why would any biological species reproduce with a biological match? To produce healthy offspring to further the continuation of the species. That would be a biological imperative for the species to thrive. Now considering genetic mutations within other species, this can be linked to varying factors such as their availability of that species within their habitat. More abundance provides more opportunity for matches to seek each other out. I can consider the possibility that this limitation with certain species is less of a problem. While others it could be, hence the need for greater numbers. There is also a spectrum to absolutely everything, as these mutations can simply be caused by some kind of environmental factor affecting the physiology of the barer of offspring (I can't say female as there are species where the male is actually the parent who gives birth to the offspring). But this can go extremely deep due to the mind boggling number of environmental factors that can cause these. However, a living organisms biological imperative which is built into its genetic code is to seek out the best possible biological match to reproduce, if a "perfect" match cannot be found, it seeks the next match, and so on. While mutations are inevitable, seeking a closer biological match makes these undesirable mutations less likely. This is what we see becoming an issue with us as human beings with our complex society, biology is left at the way side and social constructs become the leading factor in mate selection. As for 2 "little people" leading to a person being born who is of average size can be how their genetics naturally are, however the parents may have suffered from failure to nurture. For instance I'm not as big or broad as I should be like my father, not height as I am taller than my father who is 5'11. However I had failure to nurture when growing as a child due to neglect, I didn't get the nutrients and minerals I needed for my growth. Like how a plant grows to the size of its pot, but the exact same plant species in a larger pot, with more nutrients and minerals grows larger. The genetics are there, but the nurturing of the offspring is crucial to growth, it's not entirely down to genetics. This failure to nurture can affect someone's overall size and/or height, as well as other factors within that person's physiology. Now to address what you said about social constructs, this isn't based in Christian western society. Any society from any part of the world follows what is effectively a social construct that was developed and adapted over time. However we can see many people in partnerships who are Muslim and Christian, Buddhist and atheist. I'm addressing the psychological aspect where individuals reflect on their ability to accept each other's differences. And if acceptance isn't possible such as religious beliefs, an individual then gains the awareness that their dating pool has a limitation, depending on the number of limitations, the dating pool reflects that. If it's simply casual hookups, this becomes less of an issue depending on the importance of that criteria. I have no problem having sex with a woman who was a practicing Muslim, I don't have to live by those cultural traditions, however it would be down to me to accept that difference to simply sleep with them. If someone only wanted to have sex with other people sharing their same religious belief, that therefore limits their options. The point of the framework is about facilitating reflection and awareness for an individual. I've often seen people say they won't associate with particular individuals who hold a certain political belief. Okay, so that limits their options. At the same time it creates awareness for the individual to understand they themselves may not fit certain criteria, therefore they cannot expect to fit within someone's desired criteria. We can't go back to how things were when we were mere hunter gatherer tribes. So this framework is designed to function within such a complex society to help people become more aware of theirs and others differences, and to help them navigate this landscape in a way they can understand what's important to them, what's important to other people, how to assess a new connection that is made or even to evaluate a current one like a 2 year long relationship in which issues may have arisen, and then determining the sustainability of that relationship. It's not about creating a rulebook and enforcing it, and it's not about just sacrificing ones desires to simply increase chances or options in finding and maintaining a partnership whether it's short or long term." Right OK. As I now feel this has become a game of ping-pong of theoretical ideals. May I ask a few questions? Just to clear some things up please? This framework you consistently mention. Can you in layman's terms please explain and and set out the structure of this "framework" in like say perhaps if you were to show this "framework" in a bullet point presentation? I feel your point on male child bearers is very nuanced. There are literally 3 species of animals that this is relevant to. And they are sea baring animals "seahorses" effectively. Like all egg laying sea creatures the male only fertilises the eggs layed by the female. He does not give birth to them. He nurtures them untill they hatch. On the note of egg laying sea bearers. Apart from the male child bearers you mention. It is almost impossible for the female to select the male whom fertilises her eggs. There are many males who follow her as she lays to fertilise even tho she may have selected a particular male. She has no control over who does. You also state you are not as big as your father. Does your mothers genes not contribute to this? I am taller than both my parents and siblings. I am also the only one who is not "obese". Was my pot too tall and slender? Was my sisters short and wide? Using these similes for how humans grow is nonsense I think. Take the Japanese. Massive onus on healthy food ect from a very young age. So lead a very nutritious life. Yet they are not a very tall people per capita. I also find it very interesting that you mention the limitations of the pool and not accepting the ideas of others when you dismissed the idea of using online tests. Some of these tests are written by the people's who's information you have studied to assert your opinion on this subject. Can I also say that there are many psychologists who's work is contradicting to another. Also that these psychologists ideas and papers they write about their findings are at the end of the day. THEORIES. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right OK. As I now feel this has become a game of ping-pong of theoretical ideals. May I ask a few questions? Just to clear some things up please? This framework you consistently mention. Can you in layman's terms please explain and and set out the structure of this "framework" in like say perhaps if you were to show this "framework" in a bullet point presentation? I feel your point on male child bearers is very nuanced. There are literally 3 species of animals that this is relevant to. And they are sea baring animals "seahorses" effectively. Like all egg laying sea creatures the male only fertilises the eggs layed by the female. He does not give birth to them. He nurtures them untill they hatch. On the note of egg laying sea bearers. Apart from the male child bearers you mention. It is almost impossible for the female to select the male whom fertilises her eggs. There are many males who follow her as she lays to fertilise even tho she may have selected a particular male. She has no control over who does. You also state you are not as big as your father. Does your mothers genes not contribute to this? I am taller than both my parents and siblings. I am also the only one who is not "obese". Was my pot too tall and slender? Was my sisters short and wide? Using these similes for how humans grow is nonsense I think. Take the Japanese. Massive onus on healthy food ect from a very young age. So lead a very nutritious life. Yet they are not a very tall people per capita. I also find it very interesting that you mention the limitations of the pool and not accepting the ideas of others when you dismissed the idea of using online tests. Some of these tests are written by the people's who's information you have studied to assert your opinion on this subject. Can I also say that there are many psychologists who's work is contradicting to another. Also that these psychologists ideas and papers they write about their findings are at the end of the day. THEORIES. " The structure is a checklist. I have this written up in a doc file but it's far too long to post here despite how long these posts have become. It follows the same structure as I've written going from biological compatibility to social compatibility. Each point begins with a brief explanation of the purpose of the checklist and a note for context and clarity. As for referencing other species, it was merely an example. There's no need to go so deep into that small part of what I referenced. I'm well aware that there's only 3 species where these roles are reversed. Regarding your mention of the Japanese, that is genetics. Regardless of your indication to their nutrient rich diet. I'm referring to my own genetics that would suggest I'm not as big as I should be from my own research into my nutrition and fitness and other things regarding my physical health. My mother was relatively average for a woman, around 5'7 and not overtly slender or small framed. I'm a mix of Anglo/Scandinavian and Mediterranean, going by that and my family, I should be bigger. Both grandfather's were broad framed. Yes I dismissed the tests, I don't see a problem in that since a lot of people are dismissing a lot of what I've talked about especially when it comes to various compatabilities that aren't biological. Is it not okay for me to dismiss what others have said but it's okay for everyone to dismiss me? These tests that were mentioned, they're not 100% accurate, that means they can be fooled or can be prone to failure due to many factors. But again, this isn't a test I've put forward. It's a guide for reflection and observation. To try to use personality tests as some form of tool to dismiss a guide seems weak to me. They're not the same thing and they're designed for entirely different purposes. Someone can take a test, get a result that is 85% accurate, but what then? How does that tell or guide someone to reflect or even observe? It's just a result saying "you are X person, you have Y trait, you do Z things"... but how does that help someone reflect about themselves or even about other people especially wjen it comes to mate selection? You can't run a personality for someone else without knowing what their answers would be to each question. This framework, if you read the doc file I've compiled, it not only guides an individual to question themselves but the actions of another through observation and reflection. That's the distinction. That's why trying to refute this framework with personality tests fails. I am more than happy to share this doc file with anyone who is interested in reading it. I don't know if I could post it in a message through fab since I can't remember if there's a character limit to messages. But it will show just how different it is to these tests people have tried to reference in an attempt to undermine my work. They're not the same thing, they're designed for entirely different purposes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right OK. As I now feel this has become a game of ping-pong of theoretical ideals. May I ask a few questions? Just to clear some things up please? This framework you consistently mention. Can you in layman's terms please explain and and set out the structure of this "framework" in like say perhaps if you were to show this "framework" in a bullet point presentation? I feel your point on male child bearers is very nuanced. There are literally 3 species of animals that this is relevant to. And they are sea baring animals "seahorses" effectively. Like all egg laying sea creatures the male only fertilises the eggs layed by the female. He does not give birth to them. He nurtures them untill they hatch. On the note of egg laying sea bearers. Apart from the male child bearers you mention. It is almost impossible for the female to select the male whom fertilises her eggs. There are many males who follow her as she lays to fertilise even tho she may have selected a particular male. She has no control over who does. You also state you are not as big as your father. Does your mothers genes not contribute to this? I am taller than both my parents and siblings. I am also the only one who is not "obese". Was my pot too tall and slender? Was my sisters short and wide? Using these similes for how humans grow is nonsense I think. Take the Japanese. Massive onus on healthy food ect from a very young age. So lead a very nutritious life. Yet they are not a very tall people per capita. I also find it very interesting that you mention the limitations of the pool and not accepting the ideas of others when you dismissed the idea of using online tests. Some of these tests are written by the people's who's information you have studied to assert your opinion on this subject. Can I also say that there are many psychologists who's work is contradicting to another. Also that these psychologists ideas and papers they write about their findings are at the end of the day. THEORIES. The structure is a checklist. I have this written up in a doc file but it's far too long to post here despite how long these posts have become. It follows the same structure as I've written going from biological compatibility to social compatibility. Each point begins with a brief explanation of the purpose of the checklist and a note for context and clarity. As for referencing other species, it was merely an example. There's no need to go so deep into that small part of what I referenced. I'm well aware that there's only 3 species where these roles are reversed. Regarding your mention of the Japanese, that is genetics. Regardless of your indication to their nutrient rich diet. I'm referring to my own genetics that would suggest I'm not as big as I should be from my own research into my nutrition and fitness and other things regarding my physical health. My mother was relatively average for a woman, around 5'7 and not overtly slender or small framed. I'm a mix of Anglo/Scandinavian and Mediterranean, going by that and my family, I should be bigger. Both grandfather's were broad framed. Yes I dismissed the tests, I don't see a problem in that since a lot of people are dismissing a lot of what I've talked about especially when it comes to various compatabilities that aren't biological. Is it not okay for me to dismiss what others have said but it's okay for everyone to dismiss me? These tests that were mentioned, they're not 100% accurate, that means they can be fooled or can be prone to failure due to many factors. But again, this isn't a test I've put forward. It's a guide for reflection and observation. To try to use personality tests as some form of tool to dismiss a guide seems weak to me. They're not the same thing and they're designed for entirely different purposes. Someone can take a test, get a result that is 85% accurate, but what then? How does that tell or guide someone to reflect or even observe? It's just a result saying "you are X person, you have Y trait, you do Z things"... but how does that help someone reflect about themselves or even about other people especially wjen it comes to mate selection? You can't run a personality for someone else without knowing what their answers would be to each question. This framework, if you read the doc file I've compiled, it not only guides an individual to question themselves but the actions of another through observation and reflection. That's the distinction. That's why trying to refute this framework with personality tests fails. I am more than happy to share this doc file with anyone who is interested in reading it. I don't know if I could post it in a message through fab since I can't remember if there's a character limit to messages. But it will show just how different it is to these tests people have tried to reference in an attempt to undermine my work. They're not the same thing, they're designed for entirely different purposes." Although I feel you are answering my questions with nonsense and diversions to suit your agenda. If you wish to PM me with said documents. I will happily read through and respond appropriately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right OK. As I now feel this has become a game of ping-pong of theoretical ideals. May I ask a few questions? Just to clear some things up please? This framework you consistently mention. Can you in layman's terms please explain and and set out the structure of this "framework" in like say perhaps if you were to show this "framework" in a bullet point presentation? I feel your point on male child bearers is very nuanced. There are literally 3 species of animals that this is relevant to. And they are sea baring animals "seahorses" effectively. Like all egg laying sea creatures the male only fertilises the eggs layed by the female. He does not give birth to them. He nurtures them untill they hatch. On the note of egg laying sea bearers. Apart from the male child bearers you mention. It is almost impossible for the female to select the male whom fertilises her eggs. There are many males who follow her as she lays to fertilise even tho she may have selected a particular male. She has no control over who does. You also state you are not as big as your father. Does your mothers genes not contribute to this? I am taller than both my parents and siblings. I am also the only one who is not "obese". Was my pot too tall and slender? Was my sisters short and wide? Using these similes for how humans grow is nonsense I think. Take the Japanese. Massive onus on healthy food ect from a very young age. So lead a very nutritious life. Yet they are not a very tall people per capita. I also find it very interesting that you mention the limitations of the pool and not accepting the ideas of others when you dismissed the idea of using online tests. Some of these tests are written by the people's who's information you have studied to assert your opinion on this subject. Can I also say that there are many psychologists who's work is contradicting to another. Also that these psychologists ideas and papers they write about their findings are at the end of the day. THEORIES. The structure is a checklist. I have this written up in a doc file but it's far too long to post here despite how long these posts have become. It follows the same structure as I've written going from biological compatibility to social compatibility. Each point begins with a brief explanation of the purpose of the checklist and a note for context and clarity. As for referencing other species, it was merely an example. There's no need to go so deep into that small part of what I referenced. I'm well aware that there's only 3 species where these roles are reversed. Regarding your mention of the Japanese, that is genetics. Regardless of your indication to their nutrient rich diet. I'm referring to my own genetics that would suggest I'm not as big as I should be from my own research into my nutrition and fitness and other things regarding my physical health. My mother was relatively average for a woman, around 5'7 and not overtly slender or small framed. I'm a mix of Anglo/Scandinavian and Mediterranean, going by that and my family, I should be bigger. Both grandfather's were broad framed. Yes I dismissed the tests, I don't see a problem in that since a lot of people are dismissing a lot of what I've talked about especially when it comes to various compatabilities that aren't biological. Is it not okay for me to dismiss what others have said but it's okay for everyone to dismiss me? These tests that were mentioned, they're not 100% accurate, that means they can be fooled or can be prone to failure due to many factors. But again, this isn't a test I've put forward. It's a guide for reflection and observation. To try to use personality tests as some form of tool to dismiss a guide seems weak to me. They're not the same thing and they're designed for entirely different purposes. Someone can take a test, get a result that is 85% accurate, but what then? How does that tell or guide someone to reflect or even observe? It's just a result saying "you are X person, you have Y trait, you do Z things"... but how does that help someone reflect about themselves or even about other people especially wjen it comes to mate selection? You can't run a personality for someone else without knowing what their answers would be to each question. This framework, if you read the doc file I've compiled, it not only guides an individual to question themselves but the actions of another through observation and reflection. That's the distinction. That's why trying to refute this framework with personality tests fails. I am more than happy to share this doc file with anyone who is interested in reading it. I don't know if I could post it in a message through fab since I can't remember if there's a character limit to messages. But it will show just how different it is to these tests people have tried to reference in an attempt to undermine my work. They're not the same thing, they're designed for entirely different purposes. Although I feel you are answering my questions with nonsense and diversions to suit your agenda. If you wish to PM me with said documents. I will happily read through and respond appropriately." There is literally no need to be rude especially since I am answering your questions... 🙄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
