throwaway211116

I do agree with 1 and I believe the influence was subtle. I also believe it might have depended on a lot of factors. Maybe some tribes were not near any animal reservoir. Maybe some diseases were transmitted due to injuries while hunting or while butchering meat. And maybe in some cases, this lead to disadvantages during inter-tribe wars. Maybe a infected tribe lost a war, their men killed and the women raped, resulting in infection of the victorious tribe and once symptoms appeared, some spiritually inclined member of the tribe blamed it on punishment for the rapes. I think it's hard to say for sure what the influence was. Probably the meme of monogamy developed as a set of superstitions initially. I think STDs would have played a role in this early stage.

According to (1) at least 3 diseases originate form animal reservoir. Once the meme of Judaism and its fork Christianity (which merges Greek values - ancient Greece and Rome were monogamous) was on the scene it was almost certainly the greatest factor in spreading the meme of monogamy. I think by the time of antiquity, STDs were no longer the main factor in spreading the meme of monogamy. Wikipedia has a nice list of historic or current communities where polygamy was the norm.

I also find your speculation about the average duration of emotional love, plausible.

I wholeheartedly agree with 2 with the small note that theoretically we could have had it easier.

I am not sure I agree with 3. Overall medicine is a very recent development. I am not sure what are the circumstances that would have enabled us to develop science and medicine significantly earlier. Also, not sure if lack of monogamy would motivate research today but probably would to a statistically relevant degree. The relationship the public and the state have with scientific research is complicated and changes over time. There is certainly a claim that there is a link between the rise of dating apps and a rise of STDs. I do not know if there are actual studies to prove this. It may be just speculation and moral panic. Theoretically this uptick might lead to more funds being directed towards finding cures. Heteronormative monogamy definitely played a role in delaying research of treatments for HIV.

(1) “Two or three of the major STIs [in humans] have come from animals. We know, for example, that gonorrhoea came from cattle to humans. Syphilis also came to humans from cattle or sheep many centuries ago, possibly sexually”. The most recent and deadliest STI to have crossed the barrier separating humans and animals has been HIV, which humans got from the simian version of the virus in chimpanzees. https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/news/staff-bl...

I'd like to hear your points. I am curious of your viewpoint.

I am not qualified to answer.

I would tentatively say, decreasingly so. The issue, as I see it, is that although we have preventive measures and prophylactics and treatments (all imperfect), we do not yet have a culture of responsibility and building such a culture is hard.

Theoretically we could compensate for the deficiencies of our medicine, through social responsibility. In reality this does not happen. The clearest proof is the behavior of people during the Covid pandemic. Covid Zero was only achieved in a few countries. Human society is not mature enough to be responsible. Monogamy (with regards to STDs) is like social isolation for Covid and has the same strengths and weaknesses.

In the case of STDs this would mean pervasive use of testing, condoms, dental dams, etc.. Apparently the porn industry gets tested very frequently because for them an STD represents lost income. The general population not so much. When was the last time you heard of someone using a dental dam during a one night stand? It should mean a push for testing from dating apps. It would mean that someone who has an affair should actually warn the cheated partner, instead of waiting for symptoms to appear. These responsible behaviors do not happen, or at least are not as common as they should be.

As long social responsibility is not a viable solution, the only solution left is developing vaccines. On this side progress is being made, but it is slow.

If either solution is achieved, the potential for STDs becomes irrelevant in the choice of preferred *gamy. Note that monogamy is far from foolproof. Cheating happens, a lot. Also you can get infected through means other than sex and then transmit the disease via sex.

Personally I believe humans do not hate disease enough to care. I support a strategy of genocide against harmful microbes. Nothing less than complete extermination will be satisfactory.

Non-monogamous societies have solved welfare of children in different ways. I am not able to say if any method of taking care of children is better.

On the other hand, monogamy absolutely had a massive impact on STD reduction in a world with absolutely no notion of medicine.

What is even more naive is thinking there are no other colleagues "that they haven't found a situation to screw you and the rest of the team yet, and that when such a situation happens, there's a chance they will act accordingly".

Just because you do not know whether someone cheated on their spouse does not mean they did or didn't or would or wouldn't. It means you don't know.

And just because someone did or was willing to do something in one context does not mean they would do so in another different context, but they would probably do so in a similar context.

> That is a complete red-pillesque reductive explanation that I'd expect to hear out of a MGTOW style community

Precisely, I didn't mean for that comment to sound like an endorsement. Maybe I should have used a "/s" but it's not actually sarcasm, it was just meant to illustrate what some people believe. My bad. From the little I have seen, MGTOW fall into the trap of believing possessiveness is only applicable to women, along with other stereotyping misogynistic beliefs.

In case I actually gendered the explanation, I did not mean to. Either partner can be possessive. I do not know whether there are studies on which direction it happens more often.

> Intimacy happens at more than just physical the physical, and most people reserve some types of intimacy (physical or emotional) for their significant other. When you cross the boundary of intimacy you normally set for people other than your significant other with someone else, that can easily be interpreted as disingenuous or betraying to your SO.

The point is that each partners boundary is a personal thing, it may be agreed upon in a couple if it was discussed in advance and it can be shifted afterwards. And if it is discussed, it may be set in the same place for both partners or not. But by default, if it is not discussed, it is likely to be different. And people are likely to judge others assuming that everyone's boundary is in the same place.

The boundary can be set anywhere but it is important for each partner to know the other partners boundary and decide whether it is something they can live with or not, in which case it is better to find someone who is a better fit, otherwise the result will be resentment, betrayal and conflict.

It as a "thing" for those that have an unhealthy attachment style. Those in such situations will tend to be controlling and suspicious of every minor thing in order to fend of the possibility someone else "infiltrating" the relationship. Is is the typical scenario where one partner tries to isolate the other from their social circles.

Depending on the culture, the fear is that such "emotional cheating" will either eventually lead to "physical cheating" or even worse (probably feared more by men), lead to a dissolution of the relationship (without necessarily involving cheating) (probably feared more by women).

Any kind of interaction of one partner with an outside party can become suspect of containing emotional content, which the other partner believes they are entitled to. In graver cases it may even imply a diversion of resources (time, mind space, wealth, etc.) towards the third party that the partner believes is entitled to.

If homosexuality and bisexuality wasn't an even bigger taboo, all relationships and interactions would have the potential for "cheating emotionally".

Your example showcases a relationship that is perfect in all aspects other than sexual. Many relationships are not that. In many relationships emotions may go sour, trust may fade, etc. before sex becomes dysfunctional (think about the existence of makeup sex), all while both partners choose to remain in the relationship for entirely rational reasons. And as time passes, making the choice of divorce becomes harder and harder. But indeed, the topic of is so very nuanced even in cases like the example. From an outside viewpoint, there theoretically might be better alternatives but people are complicated.

A divorce, at least in the short term, is a lose-lose proposition, except:

- cases where either one is in a life threatening situation (most usually women due to domestic violence - a death-lose situation)

- cases where the law allows one to have net gains at the expense of the other and do so repeatedly (in this case marriage and divorce become a wealth transfer strategy - a win-lose situation)

In the above example, theoretically, transitioning to an open relationship would be a better alternative, allowing both partners to compartmentalize the dysfunctional parts of the relationship. But this solution is not always plausible. Proposing such a solution is not plausible in many cases. Even pondering such a solution may not be plausible in many situations. Because, in many cases, simply having it known, that such an idea was given though, is enough to unravel relationships. See all the comments that vilify "emotional cheating".