Oh boy- see what I mean? You're way to serious about this, man. Chill out, relax, and realize that your significant other is not going to do what you want them to all the time. And that's OK. That person is not your property.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My girlfriend, a hotel room, and a 30 year old
- Thread starter haiggy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh boy- see what I mean? You're way to serious about this, man. Chill out, relax, and realize that your significant other is not going to do what you want them to all the time. And that's OK. That person is not your property.
Just asking questions to understand your reasoning...
You seem be getting a litte bit upset in relation to this subject
Allow the thread to flow bro
What bothers me is the large amount of possessive attitudes I see here with regard to relationships. I can't deny that.
But whatever. Post on.
Cool man... Let it out - everyone's allowed an opinion.
I hope everything works out ok
Indeed, it's weird seeing how people think about these kinds of issues and just makes me glad I don't come across such people in my personal life!
QFT
It's not even about not wanting commitment, it's about trust and respect, two things that should really feature in any long term committed relationship.
Exactly. If you can't deal with your SO doing something you don't want them to do once in a while, that's not much of a relationship.
There's a big, big difference between a few dates and the multiyear (3?) relationship the OP said he had. I think it's fair to say that at that point in the game, it's perfectly reasonable to expect certain things of one's partner. Such things include refraining from not only impropriety, but the appearance thereof. No one except the OP's girlfriend and her "friend" know for certain whether or not uglies got bumped in that hotel room. There are certainly no shortage of suspicions, my own included. Regardless of whether or not anything did happen, you cannot deny that it looks very bad.
I still find it fascinating that many posters here would excuse the girlfriend's behavior at any cost while condemning the OP, also at any cost.
The EPMs in females related to mating cause females to look for qualities in a male that correlate with more likely remaining in a long term relationship.
These qualities are trust, respect, responsibility, & etc. It is about wanting commitment despite not seeming like that is the goal.
This effect is somewhat less obvious in developed countries where women are afforded more economic equality. But, in most places and during our evolutionary past (as shown by modern egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies), the benefit of long term male investment to women is much more important.
These evolutionary motives still impact human behaviour, but that behaviour is somewhat modified by the socio-cultural setting in which we exist. This interplay between our biology and socio-cultural context is explained by the diathesis-stress model (albeit, this model needs to be applied outside the context of mental illness in this case).
Last edited:
That's funny. Because Mord is a gay woman and I'm a gay man. We could not be less interested.
Sorry man, your senses are deceiving you!
That's funny. Because Mord is a gay woman and I'm a gay man. We could not be less interested.
Sorry man, your senses are deceiving you!
Hey... don't be a stereotype
Break the mold and have some fun!
That's funny. Because Mord is a gay woman and I'm a gay man. We could not be less interested.
Sorry man, your senses are deceiving you!
Which explains why both of your replies are so opposite of what others are saying. (I agree with you as well in some aspects)
Open relationships are not for everyone and are boundaries which I believe should have be set forth from the very beginning, if the potential for a serious long term relationship even exists.
IMO, OP handled it well. Some of the replies I'm seeing here are entertaining though.
I think he did the right thing in the end, as well.
I agree- the open relationship thing is not for everyone. But some of the replies I'm seeing here are still a bit much.
Homosexuality has evolutionary basis as well.
Initially, in mammals, the behaviour was the product of genes related to same sex alliance building strategies. This is seen in many mammal species. Throughout evolution it has been supported by some evolutionary mechanism. Go back far enough on the evolutionary tree and we all come from hermaphrodites.
Evidence suggests that the expression of homosexual behaviour is both polygenic and driven by the diathesis-stress model (given that stress affects androgen levels during both pre and post natal development and variation in androgens affects neuronal development).
Small scale egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies are typically much more accepting of homosexuality. Humans have lived in these types of societies for most of our evolutionary past. The genetic framework that has maintained the existence of homosexuality in humans at the same rate across time persists due to inclusive fitness and kin selection.
With the onset of more complex social groups, it started to have a survival benefit for offspring due to inclusive fitness. The societies of most of our evolutionary past lived in difficult environments where the amount of resources would often become very low, the population size would sometimes bottleneck, and infant mortality would periodically increase.
Groups of humans that included homosexual individuals had a greater ratio of adults to children such that during these difficult times more adults were available to provide for the children of the group. Therefore, the children of these groups had a lower infant mortality rate. Typically, these individuals would provide for the offspring of their kin which helped the genes related to the behaviour to be reproduced indirectly.
This is how inclusive fitness and kin selection indirectly influence evolution and persistence of genes for certain behaviours despite the behaviour seeming to be evolutionarily counterproductive.
Initially, in mammals, the behaviour was the product of genes related to same sex alliance building strategies. This is seen in many mammal species. Throughout evolution it has been supported by some evolutionary mechanism. Go back far enough on the evolutionary tree and we all come from hermaphrodites.
Evidence suggests that the expression of homosexual behaviour is both polygenic and driven by the diathesis-stress model (given that stress affects androgen levels during both pre and post natal development and variation in androgens affects neuronal development).
Small scale egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies are typically much more accepting of homosexuality. Humans have lived in these types of societies for most of our evolutionary past. The genetic framework that has maintained the existence of homosexuality in humans at the same rate across time persists due to inclusive fitness and kin selection.
With the onset of more complex social groups, it started to have a survival benefit for offspring due to inclusive fitness. The societies of most of our evolutionary past lived in difficult environments where the amount of resources would often become very low, the population size would sometimes bottleneck, and infant mortality would periodically increase.
Groups of humans that included homosexual individuals had a greater ratio of adults to children such that during these difficult times more adults were available to provide for the children of the group. Therefore, the children of these groups had a lower infant mortality rate. Typically, these individuals would provide for the offspring of their kin which helped the genes related to the behaviour to be reproduced indirectly.
This is how inclusive fitness and kin selection indirectly influence evolution and persistence of genes for certain behaviours despite the behaviour seeming to be evolutionarily counterproductive.
I didn't understand a damn thing you just said.
Is that part of your biology term paper? I didn't understand a damn thing you just said.
Glad I'm not the only one... I gave up a few lines in!
Sorry?
Some posters mentioned homosexuality and the thread had elements of evolution. I thought some may be interested.
And, it is an interesting conundrum when behaviour seems to evolutionarily counterproductive.
I tend to support the paradigm that all behavior eventually can be stripped down to it's evolutionary basis.
No longer a student, no longer doing anything related to my education. Now, it is just a hobby to look at things in that perspective.
Looks like I know more than the person that wrote that article given that it implies that they don't preserve their own genes or make any connection to the group including kin (a source of gene preservation).
Some posters mentioned homosexuality and the thread had elements of evolution. I thought some may be interested.
And, it is an interesting conundrum when behaviour seems to evolutionarily counterproductive.
I tend to support the paradigm that all behavior eventually can be stripped down to it's evolutionary basis.
No longer a student, no longer doing anything related to my education. Now, it is just a hobby to look at things in that perspective.
Looks like I know more than the person that wrote that article given that it implies that they don't preserve their own genes or make any connection to the group including kin (a source of gene preservation).
Last edited:
Get out now.
If she respected you she wouldn't have went.
Save yourself heartache in the future and find someone that respects you. That way you don't have to "wonder" if anything happened. A good girl who knows how you feel about that guy would not have even asked to go and flat out turned him down at the first request of the invite. She should not have any "catching" up to do. Thats BS and he most likely hit on her and got down or tried to get down her pants. It's just how it is and I won't try and sugar coat it.
LOL she has to have some "catching up" time with someone she only worked with?
That should be suspect enough for you to dump her.
If she respected you she wouldn't have went.
Save yourself heartache in the future and find someone that respects you. That way you don't have to "wonder" if anything happened. A good girl who knows how you feel about that guy would not have even asked to go and flat out turned him down at the first request of the invite. She should not have any "catching" up to do. Thats BS and he most likely hit on her and got down or tried to get down her pants. It's just how it is and I won't try and sugar coat it.
LOL she has to have some "catching up" time with someone she only worked with?
That should be suspect enough for you to dump her.
Last edited:
Oh no- you posting it was fine. I just didn't completely understand what you said. I'd have to go look up quite a few of the terms you used. For instance, what is "diathesis-stress model"?
leekohler said:
Basically, any behaviour is the byproduct of both genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors. But, a biological predisposition must exist for the behavior to occur. Some behaviors are more genetically determined and others are more environmentally determined but all behavior is to some degree influenced by both and sits on a continuum of causation between those two determining factors.
Environmental factors often produce various types of "stress" in an organism. Stress can be physiological (starvation) or emotional (fear).
Last edited:
I imagine the OP is not reading any of this as we continue the thread onward. He is in ignorant bliss with the girl of his dreams while she is, in occasional intervals, swapping bodily fluids with past "coworkers" who she isn't "close" to.