'Chose' implies that _she_ chose to end all other relationships. Field research works both ways.

Or perhaps she’s been fucked by enough studs and is now settling for a boring but rich guy?

Oh dear...

Is there something wrong with someone decided to marry a person based on their wealth rather than on physical or emotional attraction?

That is an interesting way to read the, now luckily dead, comment I replied to.

The suggested dynamics implies that the other parties selection pool stays constant, which is not true at all ages.

Just because its old, doens't mean its wrong.

Maybe it was right for a different world. That world doesn't exist anymore though, and it's never coming back no matter how much conservatives try to knee jerk us into the 19th century.

The world might have changed, but human nature and sexuality have not. We're still the same damn species, so the same rules apply.

Human sexuality is 100% culture dependent though. There are tribes where people are promiscuous, and tribes where men have multiple wives, and both of those traditions definitely predate rigid monogamy.

Human nature is people want to have sex, and will form lasting relationships for mutual benefit.

Ideas of human sexuality are ones shaped and formed by the culture they are within, which can change even in short timelines.

Unless you like the idea that the warlord gets all the women and you get nothing?

It seems like several different things are getting intertwined here and people are arguing past each other based on perceived "sides" and largely imagined positions being projected onto one another.

You can have gender equality and feminism without casual sex. Many young people today, both male and female, feel like the current system they're embedded in is frustrating and unfulfilling.

Everyone's personal preferences are equally valid. We should accept that people who express unease or unhappiness with the current dominant cultural norms pressed upon them have legitimate feelings, rather than attack and insult them by suggesting their desires belong in "the 19th century".

Insults on conservative viewpoints are par for course. This one was pretty mild as things go.

I think the insults themselves have lessened the effectiveness of the message that people are attempting to convey, effectively dulling their voice to an entire generation of people who are may have a different opinion.

Based on demographic trends, it’s actually coming back. Not sure how people miss this.

Is it antiquated if most humans living today still think that way?

Do "most" humans think that way?

Yes, unless you're a racist who restricts your definition of humans to white westerners... Most of the global human population still has values which are 'traditional' relative to the average white westerner, but white westerners often have a blind spot for that and reveal this blindspot when they say things like "the whole world" to mean western nations specifically, and "the rest of the world" to mean Europe but not America.

If for some reason most humans thought the Earth was flat, the idea would still be antiquated.

Yes that is true, but that is a scientific fact and is not an appropriate comparison when talking about human populations and their approach to pair bonding, which is driven mostly by culture.

So no, it’s not antiquated and your response requires looking at humanity through a very narrow and biased lens.

Westerners can still appreciate our values while being in the minority. I do.

In age where an incredible amount of scientific research is fraudulent, even ivy league university presidents are resigning...

I think I'll take ideals that have survived for thousands of years over dodgy conclusions from likely fraudulent and unrepeatable data.

Appeal to Tradition, classic fallacy. [1] Which ideals? Slavery has survived for thousands of years, does that make it better? Took thousands of years to develop the concept of capitalism, should we have skipped it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

The ones about marriage and the relationships between men and women than exist in nearly every civilization in the world for thousands of years.

I think the jury is out on the modern world, as many slaves in middle ages lived far better than the capitalist "slave" workers in the America, India, Philippines, today.

The reason why they had such similar ideals is because none of them had effective birth control. That was just developed in the 20th century. Pre-marital sex is no longer an issue, you no longer have to marry someone just because of your raging hormones.

However, the jury is still out because many existing cultures are disappearing by choice.

Instead simply trust the experts... oh wait.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Did you even read the page you linked? Or are you just trying to make a snarky comeback without understanding the fallacy at hand?

Yes, we dont agree the experts are experts.

It is you who is snarky and combative. You are making asinine comparison to slavery to shut down the dialog.

What dialog? "It's been around for thousands of years, therefore it is the best way to do things" is hardly basis for a conversation.

These same people will shamelessly use modern birth control, despite not being used for thousands of years. That's why those ideals existed for so long.

>>What dialog? "It's been around for thousands of years, therefore it is the best way to do things" is hardly basis for a conversation.

Is everything traditional automatically wrong and everything modern automatically right?

>> These same people will shamelessly use modern birth control, despite not being used for thousands of years. That's why those ideals existed for so long.

You got all this from the poster you replied to? It sure seem you are doing a lot of projecting and straw man building.

> Is everything traditional automatically wrong and everything modern automatically right?

How did you get this? The point of a fallacy is that the conclusion does not follow, not that "the inverse is correct". Just because something is traditional does not mean it is right, though it can be. Just because something is not traditional does not mean it is wrong, though it can be. Capitalism wasn't traditional, turned out to be a good idea. Not-murdering-people is traditional, and a pretty good one to follow.

> You got all this from the poster you replied to? It sure seem you are doing a lot of projecting and straw man building.

Yes, most people use modern birth control (e.g., condoms). It is a reasonable assumption to make.

Pay attention to the deeper point being made: effective birth control has not been available for all those thousands of years of "tradition". Why do you think premarital sex has been taboo for so long? Because until recently, that was a really good way to create unstable, broken families.

Yes, the 10th owner of the Honda civic. You get to take her to her 400,000th mile!

N-th partner when she was 19 or last partner when she is 38... Tough choice.

Alternatively, you can simply be the next rock to be turned over and moved away from. Nothing guarantees you are the one, nor the last partner.