Hacker News Reader

Comment by 77pt77 | Hacker News Reader

> one of the benefits of being in a relationship is to have somebody to whom you're at the top of the list for

Not true.

If this were true sexual attraction would not be the primary driver for relationships.

That's why you don't see heterosexual people marrying same sex people just because they are great friends and at "the top of the list".

Relationships (romantic) are primarily sexual affairs.

The whole "top of the list" thing is a recent western "invention".

Edit: I guess you can also say they are economic affairs, but there is always a sexual/reproductive element involved way before friendship

View on HN

All I can say is that, based only on the comment (I don't know you at all, of course) you may be missing out on literally the best things in life. I don't think I've seen a long-term relationship that matches your description, I haven't read an expert describe them that way, and I don't think it would be healthy or tenable. Sex drives, for example, diminish as people age; and IME relationships primarily focused on sex don't last to become long-term ones. Another way of looking at it is that long-term relationships with prostitutes would fit your description.

Sex is great and valuable; it's probably necessary at certain points in the relationship; but it's certainly not sufficient or the most important thing. Love, intimacy and human bonding are far more rewarding and valuable (and all enhanced by positive sex). As another easy example, beyond a doubt anyone I know with kids would give up sex before they gave up their child; it wouldn't be a close decision - it would be offensive to suggest otherwise to them.

EDIT: I omitted a very valuable reason for long term relationships: To have someone to care for, for whom you matter. I believe research (and plenty of anecdotal examples) shows that, lacking this benefit, isolated people feel like they don't really exist.

All I'm stating is that all romantic relationships start with sexual attraction. Otherwise they are friendships. The two are different concepts. They can and many times overlap, but don't have to. The conflation of these two concepts is a recent phenomenon and far from universal (far less common in the far east and in the so called underdeveloped world where survival is difficult)

> Another way of looking at it is that long-term relationships with prostitutes would fit your description.

There's not much data on that but I remember vividly reading an academic study that interviewed many prostitutes and cases where regular "clients" used their services for more than 2 decades while racking several divorces in that time where common.

I was really surprised at the time.

Maybe friends disappearing (like the article states) leads those men (in that study it was only male "clients") to pay to have a permanent human element in their lives.

>All I'm stating is that all romantic relationships start with sexual attraction.

You'd be surprised, but the qualifier "romantic" messes up with clearly addressing this (since it presupposes sexuality).

Marriage in most cultures have been more about the economic and companionship part than about sexuality up until recently. Heck, marriages were mostly arranged in most cultures until the last 1-2 centuries...

After all you can "play" around without getting married too, no need to marry for that.

Marriage used to be mainly economic. If anything the friendship was at best a third reason.

> If this were true sexual attraction would not be the primary driver for relationships.

i think we need to distinguish between long-term and short-term relationships. sexual attraction might be the primary reason why a man and woman initially get together, but it's not necessary the reason they stay together for years or even decades. relationships evolve, and in the end, long-term relationships are built on a lot more than sexual attraction.

As a married man with a kid, there is something more to long term romantic relationships than sex and reproduction. There is a joining of your lives; since my now-wife moved in, my life centers on two people instead of one. I don't make all decisions about what I will do and what my life will be like on my own. There is both a loss of control and a comfort in this. Where are we going to live? How are we going to spend our weekends? How will we decorate? All of those things used to be my decision on my own; now, the two of us choose together.

> Not true.

Wrong. (You're blunt? I'm blunt. That's OK.)

Poster said "one of the benefits", not "the primary driver of", and it absolutely is one of the benefits of a relationship. If you're not top of your partner's list (and vice versa) then you're not partners, you're just a mutual booty call.

I think that point went rushing way over your head.

The key words you missed, even though you quoted, are "one of the benefits". Not "the only benefit" or "the most important benefit".

Also this leads into some pretty important marital advice that just because you're at the top of someone's list doesn't mean you should stop trying to keep yourself there. Gotta put that effort in!

> Relationships (romantic) are primarily sexual affairs.

This is only true for a time when you're young, before you grow and realize what's more important.

I can't imagine anything more boring or unsatisfying than a relationship (longer than a night or two) driven by sex.

I want to have a life partner, not (just) a warm body to ejaculate into.

> Not true.

maybe you haven't met the right person yet?

In what way is this related to what was written in that comment?

It seems like you are dismissing the argument with some nebulous personal attack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com