Recent photos on my photo blog


26 February 2010 ~ View Comments

Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad

random

I’ve always wondered if it is possible to fall in love with two people, not necessarily at the same moment, but have the two overlap. I am not talking about the kind of love that it physical, or is a crush or infatuation. I’m talking about the type of “complete love” that is “scientifically defined” as possessing the three qualities of intimacy (sharing exclusive information, emotional connection and closeness), physical attraction (sex, to be blunt) and commitment (not necessarily marriage, just the notion of the couple’s commitment to maintain the relationship long term).

999c3db3d4fac5c249037864e397c7a0 Two Out of Three Aint Bad

Now from an evolutionary standpoint, it’s to humankind’s advantage to have the answer as “yes”. Considering the ultimate goal of any living organism is, regardless of its complexity, to pass on genes, then as many men and women cross-loving as possible is the best way to go about it. But we’re not animals (in a sense) and we are more inclined to parent our offspring with someone we are intimate with, definitely have sex with (till love takes its course and waxes and wanes anyway) and be committed to each other and their kids.

Comfortable by MissAchfoo Two Out of Three Aint Bad

So the little Darwins in us would compel us to do our best to fall in “complete love” with as many partners as possible.

But society doesn’t always endorse polygamy, and those that do allow it don’t normally have that high a specimen as expected. Somehow we are told, no rather, we feel wrong/guilty about being intimate with two partners at the same time, having sex with both (hopefully not in the same bedroom) and being committed to both. I don’t have the stats to back me up but it is very difficult to find someone who is totally in love with two partners and is completely fine about it. And if there are numbers the ratio will be very small. What I believe is the case is that men (or women) would be seeking out “what’s missing” in the first partner in the second. It’s usually the physical attraction or some intimacy – another person is often easier to talk to about personal problems than a partner who just can’t take your shit anymore.

The Breakup by HinoNeko Two Out of Three Aint Bad

So what gives? Darwin vs society? Just like… almost everything! We are wired to do things but not keeping within the constraints of society suddenly makes us outlaws. Probably for the better, sometimes.

But hey, two out of three ain’t bad, right?

post inspired by a psychology podcast




Tags: , ,
  • umlulu
    well i was watching the show "the bachelor" wa mashala 3alieh he claimed to be in love with 4 girls at the same time wa mi7tar which one to choose.
  • jarofjuice
    The bachelor is all act!

    Proudly sent from my iPhone
  • It is said that in our current times, sex and reproduction are divorced, and I believe it was so ,to some extent, before!

    Even worst, in evolutionary terms, the frail can pass their genes these days with all of this technological advancement in the medcare field!

    I think that the brain was the tool that helped us to over come this selection pressure, and our brain was the tool that helped us enjoy sex as a leisure time rather than a biological necessity! Take Kazanova as an example! He had sex with too many women, yet he always made sure that his girl will not get pregnant!

    One last thing, if cross breading was the ultimate wining strategy for passing our genes, then why not all of the animals do it? Indeed, very few animals do this!
  • jarofjuice
    Actually many animals will "swing" and very few animals do stick with
    one partner all their life.

    True, our brain has probably evolved the most, making it less necessary
    for other parts to, as our current physical appearances indicate! It is
    one of the reasons I don't like to use medicines; I would rather stay
    two weeks with a cold and have my body fight it than take a 3-day
    antibiotic and get it done with!
  • Oh sry I did not made it clear there! In a certain marriage season, a male is most likely to mate, if he could, with a single female! Polygamy is different from swinging!

    Many does this polygamy thingys, but believe me, only few swings in a certain season of reproduction, giving that swinging means a high probability of death afterwards! But again, the main point, sex and reproduction are not the same in humans! While I believe they are just the same for the rest of animals, except for the bonobos who seem to enjoy sex!
  • oh shit, I meant swinging not cross breeding =)
  • kinano
    It's all evolutionary, of course! It's atrocious to even think for one second that there's in only one "perfect match" for any of us out there. Polygamy or no polygamy aside, it is our so-called rationality that allows us to eventually convince ourselves that we are in love with just the one person. But underneath it all, we all miss things in any relationship (why do you think people have affairs?!).

    It's all in our genes, we seek the optimum mate to pass on our genetic code with the best possible outcome. But then again, we have our rationality to control us -not always though!
  • jarofjuice
    Rationality sucks doesn't it? It's probably fine if the type of love
    is one without marriage-like commitments but when it comes to lifetime
    partners it's difficult to think we can be with more than one all the
    time, forever, fully committed to each. Or maybe that's what we were
    taught, through mere observation!
  • In your case, it all depends on the nationality of the partners !! lol
  • jarofjuice
    Inta leish 7atet dabak bidabi!
  • You reminded me with this song :)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimggIlkpqY
  • jarofjuice
    LOL!
  • Buddy, you forgot a major thing; what about religion, you sure don't consider it to be a social constraint. I think our instincts are made to have us act like animals, but then religion, or society, gives us the human nature that distinguishes us from those animals
  • jarofjuice
    I didn't specifically mention religion because I was not talking about
    marrying or having sex with everyone, I just gave that as an extreme
    example. The point I was trying to make, badly as I see, is that if we could
    possibly be in love with more than one person at the same time (whether we
    marry them or not), and was making an evolutionary point that *if* things
    proceed to marriage then loving multiple people will produce more offspring.
  • hhhmmmm reminds me of this American TV series Big Love which tells the story of a community of polygamists and their hide and seek games with the law and the whole explanations they gave around polygamy.
    But really I don't think its a result of Darwinist thinking but more of Machiavellian thinking where each partner would play/manipulate/deceive the others (implying there is more than 2 partners in this relationship) all for the sake of reaching one-self's personal happiness. And since all partners would be doing the exact same thing, they are all happy and ignore or chose to shut an eye on the Machiavelistic nature of the relationship (meaning some of the partners might be doing it without realising it)
  • jarofjuice
    Dunno about that specific show, but I've seen quite a bit of societies with
    "heavy" polygamy practices. It's probably Machiavellian thiking in the case
    of the show. In the end you really cannot tell why someone else would do
    things. The main question I am posing isn't with regards to polygamy itself
    but just the notion of being in total love with more than one person.
  • maybe it's a way for the mind to escape from commitment by having more than one "option" you subconsciously try to trick your mind into thinking that you are not committing because there is more than one person therefore making the modern concept of committing (i.e. being faithful to the same person) obsolete.
    but now that i say that im thinking its maybe a simple question of math..... 2 positives (as in 2 partners to the same person) would negate each other and result in null.....this might explain why they sometimes don't stop at 2 partners but go for the 3rd
    i dont know my brain is going around in circles (not a good sign), either way i dont think anyone is capable of loving more than one person the exact same way, we are all different so how can we be loved the same way
  • NO WAY can we be in love with two people at the same time.You're right on melicieuse.Romantic Relationships between men and women are difficult enough without that totally gross, nauseating addition.
  • jarofjuice
    LOL! Entertaining thoughts for sure, and I see I have made you go crazy!

    Of course, no one can love two in the same way. I am not questioning the mechanism, just the mere possibility of it.
  • I guess it is all related to the game between the mind and the heart. The mind may trick you that you are in love with two or even three people. You have said, "What I believe is the case is that men (or women) would be seeking out “what’s missing” in the first partner in the second", and I totally agree with you. In this case, I don't think you will have a “complete love” with two people. After all, complete love is about dedicating your heart FULLY to one...
    unless you are some kind of alien with two hearts, then maybe you can do it. :P
  • jarofjuice
    I have one heart but many minds lol!
  • adi
    no body can be all things to all people.. I heard that from a movie but Can't recall where... I'm with the Idea of having only one partner, otherwise you'll have to be a good listener, caring, fun for both... life is hard enough why to make it harder mate!!!
  • jarofjuice
    True, we don't need more complications, but then again it's hard to
    control who you get attracted to, or fool yourself into falling in
    love with.
  • abufares
    I'm trying to read between the lines here to decipher a hidden message.
    hummm. Why were you so detached about it?
    (hopefully not in the same bedroom)???
    What's the point then from either a Darwinian or a Creationist perspective?
  • jarofjuice
    What's the point? Precisely.
blog comments powered by Disqus