"Modern" Relationships | INFJ Forum

"Modern" Relationships

Roses In The Vineyard

Well-known member
Jul 11, 2018
3,284
8,786
893
MBTI
INFJ
This has always been one of things about the modern era with the slow death of traditional monogamous relationships and the overall destruction of the family unit in western society that has black pilled me over the past decade. Really does have me feeling sorry for the new generation of kids growing up without any sense of normal family and stability that often got taken for granted by past generations. For normal people to have this happen it must really rip their guts out mentally and emotionally.

 
This has always been one of things about the modern era with the slow death of traditional monogamous relationships and the overall destruction of the family unit in western society that has black pilled me over the past decade. Really does have me feeling sorry for the new generation of kids growing up without any sense of normal family and stability that often got taken for granted by past generations. For normal people to have this happen it must really rip their guts out mentally and emotionally.

That chick seems way hotter than the guy, it makes sense why more people would want to have sex with her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha and John K
The thing is, healthy relationships are partnerships based on consent, shared values, and so on.

You’re free to create any kind of relationship you want. Finding that suitable partner isn’t easy for anyone, so that takes some work, no doubt.

If you want a relationship based on exclusive fidelity and monogamy, that’s okay. Many people want that, but those relationships don’t generate the clicks that moral outrage and manufactured despair do.

That’s the amazing thing about finding a suitable partner—together, you decide what the rules and boundaries are, and then you live by them. The both of you decide together, and you leave whatever craziness (as you define that) behind.

Yep, the way things used to work went away, and people, without rules, went batshit crazy, as people tend to do.

You control one thing—yourself—so don’t worry about those things you can’t control. That includes uncountable people who would not be right for you. You only need to find that one person who is crazy in a way that works with your flavor of crazy.

If that’s the traditional Western nuclear family, go for it. You know what’s right for you, and don’t let anyone tell you differently.

Cheers,
Ian
 
I think it's mostly an absence of morals.

Morals are NOT:
* A natural inclination to be nice, or an aversion to hurting others. That's just temperament.
* A rationalisation of preferences.
* A calculation or estimation of net benefit, either personal or social. That's just economics, mislabeled as utilitarianism.
* Conforming with social mores, customs, expectations.
* The avoidance of punishment, ostracisation, or embarrassment.
* The following of rules decided by others.
* Doing as one wishes.

Morality is the conscious commitment to conform one's actions and decisions to moral principles, at all times, in all circumstances, indefinitely, regardless of cost or benefit.

I don't think many people actually have any morality, and most will never actually commit to any principle reliably. In my opinion, it's unrealistic to expect the vast majority of people to be reliably truthful, let alone reliably commited to anything else. If at some point I want to have a family, I'll probably limit potential partners to those who are RELIGIOUSLY moral: ie, devoutly Christian from a branch of Christianity which emphasises morality, not just credulity (eg Catholics).
 
If at some point I want to have a family,
I wonder if this somehow goes to the heart of the issue. I don't know if it's a modern thing, but people tend to talk about relationships as binary - something that's contained within the lives of the two people concerned and only their business. What we seem to have lost to a considerable extent is that the commitment you make to each other is not a closed box. To my mind the commitment you make automatically carries over in advance to the children you have together, and that commitment is between you as a couple and your children, not between each of you separately and your kids.

If you don't have any children then I think you have some wider choices in the way you live your relationships - that's because the only ones who can be hurt are yourselves. If you have children, then it's very different - I think you both have a shared obligation to provide them with a stable and loving home until they are old enough to be independent, and a love obligation beyond that to the time when they have their own families. This I feel is quite independent of any additional moral considerations that come from a religious background, or any other more formal code of ethics.

Now I know this isn't always possible and it only takes one person to break up a couple, but I feel it's an ideal that's pretty vital to hold onto as much as possible. Children can be dreadfully damaged by the split up of their parents and one of the greatest shadow fears of young kids once they learn about death is that they lose a parent. I've seen the damage that can be caused to kids by family break-up and it can blight the rest of your life.
 
@ Matty, you hit the nail on the head. We should be likely yoked. Morals and ethics are things that must be accomplished. I'm getting old and have no reason to try and change what works for me.

The lack of those growing up with morals upsets me It is why our world is turning into Sodom and Gomorrah. Schools, books, teachings, TV, smart phones have helped to destroy morals, but there are still those around with strong morals and ethics. The world needs guidance. It needs discipline. It needs God. Watching the world leads me to sorrow for it. It may take a man to do what needs to be done much bigger than me. I don't think I could go through with casting millions into eternal damnation and separating them from the Godly ones. I may feel much differently when I die.
 
This has always been one of things about the modern era with the slow death of traditional monogamous relationships and the overall destruction of the family unit in western society that has black pilled me over the past decade. Really does have me feeling sorry for the new generation of kids growing up without any sense of normal family and stability that often got taken for granted by past generations. For normal people to have this happen it must really rip their guts out mentally and emotionally.

Agreed^
 
This is why I am personally against changing laws and issues to please someone's desires. Without morals and ethics, this world is doomed. I have read in Colossians 3:5 this:
"
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:"

Many a token of God's displeasure fell upon them because of this sin.

I type when it feels like I should type, and keep silence when not.

"Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

What a simple thought to bring the world to its knees. When the words are spoken, thus shall it be.

These words are not debatable, not open for discussion, and so be it.
 
Last edited:
Aside from morale and general consensus of what constitutes a healthy modern relationship, open relationships are often questioned whether or not they're healthy for both consenting adults and the children involved. I can only assume based on the information I've observed with polygamous families. Polygamy seems to create a wave in emotions, namely anger, frustration and jealousy. Wouldn't it be more fair for everyone if that can be reduced as much as possible? Of course, polygamist families and children can be greatly affected by this also. A relationship is supposed to be what makes us happy and healthier, right? It'll increase longevity and create upkeep, as well as balance, in presumably monogamous families.
 
I’m not saying anything about the relationship in the video is ok, but slow death of monogamous relationships and destruction of the family unit seem kind of hyperbolic to me. So she’s basically pimpin’, not in the sense of trafficking him, but in the sense of justifying her ability to mess around while restricting her partner. It’s not a new form of dysfunctional relationship and it’s been around for centuries.
 
Zooming out, open relationships had been the norm for most of human history (last 100k years) in hunter gatherer societies. Lifelong monogamy is the newest kid on the block starting out 10k years ago after transitioning to agriculture. The driving factor here was that males could pass their accumulated resources to their children. This model was so successful that we got to our current civilization eventually.

The main competing model currently is polygamy but it seems to be less successful overall. Due to the fact that when one man has multiple wives, another one is left without any. Thus there is a surplus of young frustrated men in the society, leading to constant bloodshed. Polyandric societies are rare and have barely advanced at all.

So it's ironic that open relationships are branded "modern", when in reality they are a big step backwards.
 
So it's ironic that open relationships are branded "modern", when in reality they are a big step backwards.
I'm going to actually give some push back on this. Human beings technically have been mostly in serially monogamous relationships with promiscuity as the norm even in hunter gather societies with pair bonding, break ups, and some form of divorce being normal occurrences, yet not really ever in open relationships as defined in modernity. Jealousy, mate guarding, and violence across human history involving infidelity and broken romantic promises is evidence of this. What things are new to the sex and pair bonding dynamics are institutional marriage as a result of agriculture, lifelong partnership as a result of mostly Christianity, the idea of romance and devotionalism as a result of mostly romanticism in the west. Polygyny is common and polyandry is rarer but still observed across hunter gather societies, but full-on open relationships this is a modern phenomenon. Now, the truth is human beings died much more frequently, migrated more often leaving old partners behind, and didn't live with Christian sex and marriage norms for most of human history and it took time for things like lifelong partnership and devotionalism to emerge, but human pair bonding is old and exists so we form bonds to make us more successful at rearing infants until they're about 3 years old, then we go off and potentially find another mate, but human beings have always been intensely jealous and prone to conflict over infidelity. Status is really the vehicle that changes this reality historically pre or post the agricultural revolution, human beings with high social status may be able to take on more than one partner for whatever reason, but this has never been normal or socially sanctioned for all or most humans as observed as open relationships advocate. Open relationships are a step in the wrong direction, because most violence present in the world and a good amount of it in the past results over human jealousy, romantic and otherwise. Open relationships are like extended courtships, we have a lot of ways for finding and testing mates, but we also have a different brain state for when we've found the one, we want the most which we equate to romantic love. You don't want to go promoting things that will inspire more jealousy, resentment, hate, and envy in the minds of human beings, because we can get right nasty and violent when things do. Sex and romance are already fairly volatile realities and open relationships just pour more fuel on the fire and there is a lot of evidence to suggest people higher in dark triad characteristics are the most open to open relationships which should come as a no shock to most.
 
Last edited: