I've been married more than 25 years now. It was a different time back then but compatible people are compatible people, regardless of which era we're talking about. I genuinely have never had to "work" on my marriage. If that means respecting your wife and kids and visa versa, dealing with the inevitable ups and downs and getting through things as stoically as a man can be for his wife and kids, then ok, it was work. With that, it is the easiest work I've ever done and continue to do.
There's probably a generational element that can lead to two strong-willed people having trouble cooperating with each other. It seems like radical feminism is more mainstream than it used to be. I think when you have generations of people getting divorced, you wind up with children who never witnessed a functional marriage as kids and when they grow up, they're not sure how to make it work.
I'm sure younger than you but nowadays compatible people are rarer than before. A boomer friend of mine has told me once was sufficient go out, take an ice cream, and talk to the girl sit near you. Today the chances that girl is compatible are insignificant
You have an awesome channel, Mrs. Ruhl, but I'm going to push back s little regarding your stance on polyamory. It may not be for everyone, but for some it is a valid and fulfilling relationship style choice (while I have personally seen it as working better for middle aged to older couples with grown and out-of-the-house children). One thing about polyamory is that it suffers from terrible PR due to an inordinate amount of newbies not having any idea of what they are getting into, not working on any kind of emotional, communication or relationship growth while attempting it, failing miserably, and then posting their Ls online. I know plenty of poly folk in successful "more than two" relationships who are very happy in whatever type of polycule they are part of, who don't flaunt it online, have no interest in advancing any agenda, and just want to quietly live their lives in the way that works for them. We are all entitled to our opinions, but it doesn't seem fair to portray a relationship style with negative connotations just because it doesn't fit the traditional societal mold or just because one feels that it wouldn't work for themselves personally. On a different note, I think it's more proper to categorize open marriage as falling under ENM than polyamory. Open marriages are typified by outside sexual partners without romantic and/or emotional attachments, while polyamory is all about being open to emotions and romance with more than one partner. Please keep up the good work, though, with your very informative channel. Even when we may not agree on the position taken, it's so nice to hear thoughtful and respectful adult discourse.
I listened to a radio call in show a few days ago in regards to people who are in polyamorous relationships. The justifications were not convincing , more self-centred. Those with children claimed they led well- balanced lives and the kids benefited overall. Poppycock in my opinion.
10:00 with a similar argumentation one could claim that males would try to enforce fidelity. There is some plausibility that alphas would share some of their females with lesser males to pacify them. But it would also not be in the interest of women to have babies with the lesser males (when they could have an alpha baby instead). They'd all want a pretty good chance for alpha offspring. There are so many factors at work that I can hardly imagine polyamory would have been an evolutionary stable strategy in many circumstances, so if it existed or exists at all, it was very probably not universal. Bonobos are different, they also have less sexual dimorphism where humans are between Bonobos and other Primates (who keep harems)
Polyamory is often worse than being alone. I had a quick fling with a polyamorous woman. She was partnered but solo dating. In other words, she had a primary relationship. She needed permission from her primary partner to be with and do thing with other guys, potentially down to the finest detail. I never felt such a level of chemistry with anyone else as I felt with her. I was so briefly in seventh heaven. But the moment I realized that I would have to be ok with having another man's needs be prioritized over and above my own needs, it became a nightmare and ended quickly. Being with a woman whose primary loyalty lies with another man is worse than being alone. Even if, nay, especially if, it's a woman with whom you have amazing chemistry.
The premise that something is good just because it's natural is nonsensical. All kinds of crimes happen in nature that wouldn't be tolerated in a society.
Marriage isn't about the happiness of adults fundamentally, it's about the wellbeing of children. Being an adult means doing things that you don't want to do. I think our grandparents and great grandparents found a lot of fulfillment in it.
@@erinbyrd5377 LOL. Intersectional feminism has destroyed the viability and benefits of marriage. It's no longer an acceptable gamble for men. I'll stick with my harem, thanks.
A modern women that don't have the grass is greener brainwashing agenda will have fulfillment if she has the discipline, habit, training, example, and been raise by a good mother, and been discipline by a strong male role model. A modern women, no matter how average in looks or even below average, if she is bombarded with media of princess treatment, of delusional ease and comfort, and the life of luxury with no understanding on the risk, difficulty, and extreme low odds of luck required to get such opulence will never be fulfilled no matter if how good the man or husband is "in comparison", a good man will be compared to the 1 dick over 8 inch and complete fills her out of the 15 men she slept with from the thug who's broke and dumb, and then a good man will be compared to the 1 rich kid who spend his parents money taking her to a 5star hotel for a 1 night stand thinking it's how she should be treated, and then a good man will be compared to the charms, love bombing, and non-lasting schemes of a player to manipulate her emotions she she gets short term addicted to his attention and validation. This is the reality of 90% of modern women no matter how average she looks after a few years of using a dating app. Toxic Technology has ensured women will no longer be fulfilled in a monogamous relationship. She will actually be more fulfilled as the side chick to the rich player at the risk of her future demise, and by the time she exceeds 35, when she gets desperate and tries to "settle", most women with the average intelligence is unable to conceal her dissatisfaction from her good man, and this will just lead to his disillusionment and destroy any fulfillment. So yes 80% of all marriages are unfulfilling, and the power is in mostly women's hands, but they will refuse to fix this, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, even social power.
One thing that's a big obvious blind spot about the author's goal with that book, if it specifically seeks to persuade people away from monogamy, is the notion that this dialog is a dialog of a genuine *duality.* All or nothing. One side, or the other. True or false. This does seem to be a decently popular way of viewing things simplistically, but it may not be dualistic. Whether or not they're rational, people can genuinely be dualistic in their perception of reality, they can genuinely be polyamorous, or they can genuinely be monogamous, and in whichever case, each group of people can have an entire culture that they thrive in with their respective lifestyles (or they don't thrive at all and they change things, but that depends). By the way, I'm not necessarily anti-duality and pro shades-of-gray, I'm just adding relevant concepts that can be adequate definitional tools in this conversation. More importantly, I find it an issue any time someone attempts to make broad-stroke naturalistic arguments about behavioral phenomena in society because most of the time I see someone attempt it (alpha/beta, "Female nature," or American slaves being "mentally ill" for wanting to escape), they're usually out of their depth, hasty, and too eager with their prescriptions. Their out-of-depth reasoning may also be partially or wholly motivated, be they personal, external, or political motivations in particular. If we're similarly making a dualistic truth claim in opposition to the author's dualistic arguments and arguing why monogamy is better, despite being monogamous myself, I also disagree with this approach along the same rhetorical lines, steering away from the dualism unless one actually exists. It's not impossible for monoliths to exist, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that there are any in this topic.
I'm not the one who says monogamy is natural. That's what Desmond Morris says. Polyamory is bad for children and despite popular belief that sex is a sterile activity, it's not. Sex produces children.
@erinruhl5377 Oh nono, it's great that you're doing a lot of contextualizing. I do the same & brain recognize brain. 🫵😎 When I mentioned pointed naturalistic arguments, I was more referring to the author of the polyamory book you're retorting since you're quoting the stats they present that they believe justifies their position, if I recall the video correctly. The notion that healthy = natural. The only disagreement I had with you is engaging with the argument dualistically, unless you're actually not and I slightly misunderstood?
It's only been in the last ten thousand years that Homo sapiens have understood the male role in sexual reproduction prior to which women were regarded as the sole source of children. This was the basis of matriarchy during the paleolithic. Our deep psychology is still affected by this gynocentric interpretation of reproduction. As asexually reproducing species, we want to roll the die with more than one partner in our lifetime, men as well as women. Yet due to the longer commitment to her children, a woman can only achieve this less often than a man. This biological limitation corresponds to surveys in which men and women are asked how many sexual partners they would like in their lifetime. The number for men is higher than that for women, yet the number for women is decidedly not 1
According to the GSS survey data, where men and women self report their sexual activity to Govt. data banks, when you total the number of self reported sexual partners of men vs women, men have had 2.4 times the number of sexual partners that women have had. And this results in the median number of partners for men as 6 and women as 4. But this doesn't make sense. Women have more same sex partners than men, so women's total partner count should be higher than men's. Somebodies lying on these surveys. I take their accuracy with a huge grain of salt. This is even more the case when you factor the statistics that 24% of men and 16% of women under the age of 30 report no sexual partners. Doing a weighted adjustment to women's reported number of partners so they roughly equal men's number of partners we still get a median count for men at 6 and 8 to 9 for women. I think this is a more accurate description of what I have seen in my life.
The author of that book Dr Christopher Ryan specifically stated that the book does not advocate for polyamory but the book explains how we evolved to operate in very small groups of 50 to 150 people where indeed every woman is the wife of every man and every man is the husband of every woman and this explains that while we may deeply love somebody but still find another person attractive yet we choose to be monogamous. It is through sperm competition inside the female that paternity is assured and not through the male fighting for mates as the gorilla does in his harem system of mating (or indeed as we seem to be seeing in modern societies). Naturally we don’t have the same identity to small hunter gatherer groups and humans also developed the brain (at the expense of the female reproductive system as that space needed to be bigger really to get that baby out from!). So this is not practical in our societies of land ownership, identity of paternity, STDs although not as much of a powerful vector of transmission as airborne diseases but still exists. Where sleeping with other partners brings conflict of intrests and downright betrayal. Cheating if it is a man and betrayal if it is a woman.
Books like this and evolutionary theory are interesting, but being poly myself, I have no need to try to justify it through some scientific argument. I live this way because it brings me happiness. I don't need to justify that to anyone else.
@@erinbyrd5377 You say that as though it's a bad thing. If others want to be miserable and subservient to popular opinion, I will never stand in their way. Personally, I've found that the approval of others or of "society" is the most worthless currency in the universe.
Thank you for making this video. I agree. But I have an overly personal question. You are so incredibly attractive, yet you never seem to smile with your teeth. Are you not happy with your teeth? You don't seem overall unhappy. It worries me. I hope you keep doing videos like this.
@@erinbyrd5377 I agree , "You are so incredibly attractive". But your teeth are fine. I stumbled upon your channel and watching a few. Nice to hear such a serious mind turning these ideas over in your head. It's very salacious.
Since there are moral implications with any behavior that causes harm, I imagine you are antinatalist? And also like to point out that there's all kinds of irrational things that people get jealous about like new toys, new cars, more resources, sexier partners, etc.
@@erinbyrd5377 how about the fact that we can't receive consent from the unborn to be brought here to inevitably experience harm, suffering and death. It's a gamble that some of the worst things can happen to them. A non-existent being isn't deprived of anything. Name one unselfish+ethical reason to procreate? Explain how antinatalists are selfish when most are advocating for prioritizing existing life over procreation.
No. Not even going to watch past the first 20 seconds. If you don't approve of a practice, don't engadge in it. Not just polyamory but polygamy in particular is the natural state of human relationships. It's totally fine if you disagree. But I for one am done being told how I can and can't live my life but other people who have no investment in it. It takes a village to raise a child. Having more than two caregivers can only be a benefit.
@@erinbyrd5377 LMAO 🤣🤣🤣 No. It's for responsible people who have realized that the game is rigged and in order to win we have to play a different game with different rules.
@@erinbyrd5377 LMAO 🤣🤣🤣 That was rude. I have to father at least 3 now. Just to defy you. 😉😁 Besides, with the ultra conservative Christian breeding cults trying to reproduce their way to a voting majority we free thinking sentient human beings have an obligation to keep up. So sad, that will put quite a strain on the biosphere. Fortunately Denise and famine will help control the population a bit. It's too bad we don't have any natural predators. A population of T-Rex would come in handy about now. LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
I've been married more than 25 years now. It was a different time back then but compatible people are compatible people, regardless of which era we're talking about. I genuinely have never had to "work" on my marriage. If that means respecting your wife and kids and visa versa, dealing with the inevitable ups and downs and getting through things as stoically as a man can be for his wife and kids, then ok, it was work. With that, it is the easiest work I've ever done and continue to do.
There's probably a generational element that can lead to two strong-willed people having trouble cooperating with each other. It seems like radical feminism is more mainstream than it used to be. I think when you have generations of people getting divorced, you wind up with children who never witnessed a functional marriage as kids and when they grow up, they're not sure how to make it work.
I'm sure younger than you but nowadays compatible people are rarer than before. A boomer friend of mine has told me once was sufficient go out, take an ice cream, and talk to the girl sit near you. Today the chances that girl is compatible are insignificant
You have an awesome channel, Mrs. Ruhl, but I'm going to push back s little regarding your stance on polyamory. It may not be for everyone, but for some it is a valid and fulfilling relationship style choice (while I have personally seen it as working better for middle aged to older couples with grown and out-of-the-house children). One thing about polyamory is that it suffers from terrible PR due to an inordinate amount of newbies not having any idea of what they are getting into, not working on any kind of emotional, communication or relationship growth while attempting it, failing miserably, and then posting their Ls online. I know plenty of poly folk in successful "more than two" relationships who are very happy in whatever type of polycule they are part of, who don't flaunt it online, have no interest in advancing any agenda, and just want to quietly live their lives in the way that works for them.
We are all entitled to our opinions, but it doesn't seem fair to portray a relationship style with negative connotations just because it doesn't fit the traditional societal mold or just because one feels that it wouldn't work for themselves personally.
On a different note, I think it's more proper to categorize open marriage as falling under ENM than polyamory. Open marriages are typified by outside sexual partners without romantic and/or emotional attachments, while polyamory is all about being open to emotions and romance with more than one partner.
Please keep up the good work, though, with your very informative channel. Even when we may not agree on the position taken, it's so nice to hear thoughtful and respectful adult discourse.
I listened to a radio call in show a few days ago in regards to people who are in polyamorous relationships. The justifications were not convincing , more self-centred. Those with children claimed they led well- balanced lives and the kids benefited overall. Poppycock in my opinion.
Thanks for this video, it is therapeutic for me to hear you discuss this topic and I think you make very good points. And no, we aren't bonobos. 😅
Polyamory will never work for humans because of the hard-wired tendency towards jealousy.
10:00 with a similar argumentation one could claim that males would try to enforce fidelity. There is some plausibility that alphas would share some of their females with lesser males to pacify them. But it would also not be in the interest of women to have babies with the lesser males (when they could have an alpha baby instead). They'd all want a pretty good chance for alpha offspring. There are so many factors at work that I can hardly imagine polyamory would have been an evolutionary stable strategy in many circumstances, so if it existed or exists at all, it was very probably not universal.
Bonobos are different, they also have less sexual dimorphism where humans are between Bonobos and other Primates (who keep harems)
Both monogamy and polyamory are fine, so long as all the parties involved consent.
Polyamory is often worse than being alone.
I had a quick fling with a polyamorous woman. She was partnered but solo dating. In other words, she had a primary relationship. She needed permission from her primary partner to be with and do thing with other guys, potentially down to the finest detail.
I never felt such a level of chemistry with anyone else as I felt with her. I was so briefly in seventh heaven. But the moment I realized that I would have to be ok with having another man's needs be prioritized over and above my own needs, it became a nightmare and ended quickly.
Being with a woman whose primary loyalty lies with another man is worse than being alone. Even if, nay, especially if, it's a woman with whom you have amazing chemistry.
All this means is it's not the right relationship model for you.
You sound needy and clingy. I would love a steady bedroom partner that I didn't have to deal with outside the bedroom. Perfect situation for me.
The premise that something is good just because it's natural is nonsensical. All kinds of crimes happen in nature that wouldn't be tolerated in a society.
One has to wonder just how many men and women, have truly found fulfilment in monogamous marriages?
Marriage isn't about the happiness of adults fundamentally, it's about the wellbeing of children. Being an adult means doing things that you don't want to do. I think our grandparents and great grandparents found a lot of fulfillment in it.
I think it's cute that you actually think that the well-being of children is served when the adults in a relationship are miserable.
@@kenkneram4819 Relationships require work and dedication. There's no such thing as a perfect marriage.
@@erinbyrd5377
LOL.
Intersectional feminism has destroyed the viability and benefits of marriage.
It's no longer an acceptable gamble for men.
I'll stick with my harem, thanks.
A modern women that don't have the grass is greener brainwashing agenda will have fulfillment if she has the discipline, habit, training, example, and been raise by a good mother, and been discipline by a strong male role model.
A modern women, no matter how average in looks or even below average, if she is bombarded with media of princess treatment, of delusional ease and comfort, and the life of luxury with no understanding on the risk, difficulty, and extreme low odds of luck required to get such opulence will never be fulfilled no matter if how good the man or husband is "in comparison", a good man will be compared to the 1 dick over 8 inch and complete fills her out of the 15 men she slept with from the thug who's broke and dumb, and then a good man will be compared to the 1 rich kid who spend his parents money taking her to a 5star hotel for a 1 night stand thinking it's how she should be treated, and then a good man will be compared to the charms, love bombing, and non-lasting schemes of a player to manipulate her emotions she she gets short term addicted to his attention and validation.
This is the reality of 90% of modern women no matter how average she looks after a few years of using a dating app. Toxic Technology has ensured women will no longer be fulfilled in a monogamous relationship. She will actually be more fulfilled as the side chick to the rich player at the risk of her future demise, and by the time she exceeds 35, when she gets desperate and tries to "settle", most women with the average intelligence is unable to conceal her dissatisfaction from her good man, and this will just lead to his disillusionment and destroy any fulfillment.
So yes 80% of all marriages are unfulfilling, and the power is in mostly women's hands, but they will refuse to fix this, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, even social power.
One thing that's a big obvious blind spot about the author's goal with that book, if it specifically seeks to persuade people away from monogamy, is the notion that this dialog is a dialog of a genuine *duality.* All or nothing. One side, or the other. True or false. This does seem to be a decently popular way of viewing things simplistically, but it may not be dualistic. Whether or not they're rational, people can genuinely be dualistic in their perception of reality, they can genuinely be polyamorous, or they can genuinely be monogamous, and in whichever case, each group of people can have an entire culture that they thrive in with their respective lifestyles (or they don't thrive at all and they change things, but that depends). By the way, I'm not necessarily anti-duality and pro shades-of-gray, I'm just adding relevant concepts that can be adequate definitional tools in this conversation. More importantly, I find it an issue any time someone attempts to make broad-stroke naturalistic arguments about behavioral phenomena in society because most of the time I see someone attempt it (alpha/beta, "Female nature," or American slaves being "mentally ill" for wanting to escape), they're usually out of their depth, hasty, and too eager with their prescriptions. Their out-of-depth reasoning may also be partially or wholly motivated, be they personal, external, or political motivations in particular.
If we're similarly making a dualistic truth claim in opposition to the author's dualistic arguments and arguing why monogamy is better, despite being monogamous myself, I also disagree with this approach along the same rhetorical lines, steering away from the dualism unless one actually exists. It's not impossible for monoliths to exist, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that there are any in this topic.
I'm not the one who says monogamy is natural. That's what Desmond Morris says. Polyamory is bad for children and despite popular belief that sex is a sterile activity, it's not. Sex produces children.
@erinruhl5377 Oh nono, it's great that you're doing a lot of contextualizing. I do the same & brain recognize brain. 🫵😎
When I mentioned pointed naturalistic arguments, I was more referring to the author of the polyamory book you're retorting since you're quoting the stats they present that they believe justifies their position, if I recall the video correctly. The notion that healthy = natural.
The only disagreement I had with you is engaging with the argument dualistically, unless you're actually not and I slightly misunderstood?
It's only been in the last ten thousand years that Homo sapiens have understood the male role in sexual reproduction prior to which women were regarded as the sole source of children. This was the basis of matriarchy during the paleolithic. Our deep psychology is still affected by this gynocentric interpretation of reproduction. As asexually reproducing species, we want to roll the die with more than one partner in our lifetime, men as well as women. Yet due to the longer commitment to her children, a woman can only achieve this less often than a man. This biological limitation corresponds to surveys in which men and women are asked how many sexual partners they would like in their lifetime. The number for men is higher than that for women, yet the number for women is decidedly not 1
According to the GSS survey data, where men and women self report their sexual activity to Govt. data banks, when you total the number of self reported sexual partners of men vs women, men have had 2.4 times the number of sexual partners that women have had. And this results in the median number of partners for men as 6 and women as 4. But this doesn't make sense. Women have more same sex partners than men, so women's total partner count should be higher than men's. Somebodies lying on these surveys. I take their accuracy with a huge grain of salt. This is even more the case when you factor the statistics that 24% of men and 16% of women under the age of 30 report no sexual partners. Doing a weighted adjustment to women's reported number of partners so they roughly equal men's number of partners we still get a median count for men at 6 and 8 to 9 for women. I think this is a more accurate description of what I have seen in my life.
The author of that book Dr Christopher Ryan specifically stated that the book does not advocate for polyamory but the book explains how we evolved to operate in very small groups of 50 to 150 people where indeed every woman is the wife of every man and every man is the husband of every woman and this explains that while we may deeply love somebody but still find another person attractive yet we choose to be monogamous. It is through sperm competition inside the female that paternity is assured and not through the male fighting for mates as the gorilla does in his harem system of mating (or indeed as we seem to be seeing in modern societies).
Naturally we don’t have the same identity to small hunter gatherer groups and humans also developed the brain (at the expense of the female reproductive system as that space needed to be bigger really to get that baby out from!). So this is not practical in our societies of land ownership, identity of paternity, STDs although not as much of a powerful vector of transmission as airborne diseases but still exists. Where sleeping with other partners brings conflict of intrests and downright betrayal. Cheating if it is a man and betrayal if it is a woman.
Books like this and evolutionary theory are interesting, but being poly myself, I have no need to try to justify it through some scientific argument. I live this way because it brings me happiness. I don't need to justify that to anyone else.
Ah yes, "my happiness"
@@erinbyrd5377 You say that as though it's a bad thing.
If others want to be miserable and subservient to popular opinion, I will never stand in their way. Personally, I've found that the approval of others or of "society" is the most worthless currency in the universe.
@@kenofken9458 I just think there's more to life
@@erinbyrd5377 Of course there is, and that's why its good to seek a balance.
Thank you for making this video. I agree. But I have an overly personal question. You are so incredibly attractive, yet you never seem to smile with your teeth. Are you not happy with your teeth? You don't seem overall unhappy. It worries me. I hope you keep doing videos like this.
Haha, I will try to show my teeth more 😀 Thank you for the kind words 🙏 and I shall keep going.
@@erinbyrd5377 I agree , "You are so incredibly attractive". But your teeth are fine. I stumbled upon your channel and watching a few. Nice to hear such a serious mind turning these ideas over in your head. It's very salacious.
This book was largely debunked in s* at dusk
Since there are moral implications with any behavior that causes harm, I imagine you are antinatalist?
And also like to point out that there's all kinds of irrational things that people get jealous about like new toys, new cars, more resources, sexier partners, etc.
I am totally pro-natalist. I don't see how caring about morality would make someone anti-natalist. I think anti-natalism is selfish.
@@erinbyrd5377 how about the fact that we can't receive consent from the unborn to be brought here to inevitably experience harm, suffering and death. It's a gamble that some of the worst things can happen to them. A non-existent being isn't deprived of anything. Name one unselfish+ethical reason to procreate? Explain how antinatalists are selfish when most are advocating for prioritizing existing life over procreation.
I stumbled on this video
The title alone sounded evil.. Hard pass .. need Jesus🙏🏼
He does give a next-level reacharound. Good choice.
No. Not even going to watch past the first 20 seconds.
If you don't approve of a practice, don't engadge in it.
Not just polyamory but polygamy in particular is the natural state of human relationships.
It's totally fine if you disagree.
But I for one am done being told how I can and can't live my life but other people who have no investment in it.
It takes a village to raise a child.
Having more than two caregivers can only be a benefit.
It's for people who are immature.
@@erinbyrd5377
LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
No. It's for responsible people who have realized that the game is rigged and in order to win we have to play a different game with different rules.
@@erinbyrd5377
LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
That was rude.
I have to father at least 3 now. Just to defy you. 😉😁
Besides, with the ultra conservative Christian breeding cults trying to reproduce their way to a voting majority we free thinking sentient human beings have an obligation to keep up.
So sad, that will put quite a strain on the biosphere.
Fortunately Denise and famine will help control the population a bit.
It's too bad we don't have any natural predators. A population of T-Rex would come in handy about now. LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
@@kenkneram4819You have a right to your opinion. All I ask is that you try keeping an open mind
@@erinbyrd5377 ditto.