Comment by otterley | Hacker News Reader

Comment by otterley | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is a bullshit theory with zero evidence or science behind it. I’m on my second marriage now, am about as far from a virgin as the earth is from the sun, and I’m as happy as can be and utterly devoted to and blissfully in love with my wife.

Listen, I know you’re probably having difficulty finding a romantic relationship and I know how demoralizing and depressing that can be. I’ve been there - my teens and twenties were just awful for my self-esteem. But it can, and usually does, get better, as your hormones settle down and you learn to make friends with prospective romantic partners and can take the time to form a strong bond. The world is a big place and I believe there is someone for everyone, although that “someone” can be difficult to find.

If I were to give you one piece of advice, it would be for you to figure out what the best part of you is, and to feel great about that. Having a sense of confidence in something you are or do is infectious and is very attractive to people, and can lead to great success down the line.

And last, but not least, don’t settle! Just because someone is attracted to you doesn’t mean they’re right for you. I’ve made that mistake with disastrous consequences. As a late bloomer I only really came to terms with that in my early 40s.

Good luck!

>This is a bullshit theory with zero evidence or science behind it.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-li...

https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marita...

>And last, but not least, don’t settle!

This is horrible advice. You have minimal requirements and fill in the remainder by being human and growing together. "Don't settle" is exactly how people continue to monkey branch to new partners ever higher.

First of all, the Institute for Family Studies is not a credible, respected source of scientific information. They're a conservative think tank, funded by religious partisans, that cherry-picks their data in order to make persuasive political arguments. However, I'd be open to peer-reviewed papers from reputable social scientists not affiliated with a partisan entity.

Second, it is never horrible advice to suggest to someone that they try to minimize their unhappiness. Jealousy, neglect, and unkindness are all toxic to a relationship; and sometimes you just aren't attracted to certain people at a basic level for whatever reason. By "don't settle," I'm not suggesting that one hold out for a pinnacle of perfection (e.g. a supermodel), but rather, a partner that makes you feel good, loved, validated, and respected - and whom you feel the same about in return.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003...

>"I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution."

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303

>"A truism in psychology is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is no less true in the realm of sexual behavior. Indeed, one of the strongest predictors of marital infidelity is one’s number of prior sex partners (Buss, 2000). Deception about past sexual promiscuity would have inflicted greater costs, on average, on men than on women"

There's plenty more. We can keep this up all day. There's very little to support your idea of partner count or marriage count having little influence, and quite a lot to support the opposite.

>It is never horrible advice to suggest to someone that they try to minimize their unhappiness

The problem with your "advice" is that it sets up exactly that perfection part, even if your intentions are different. It also discredits the idea of growing together, when in reality most people do just fine with any partner which meets some set of minimal values, followed by growing together and overcoming obstacles. "Minimal" does not include any of the things you mention, rather it comes to realistic terms that shooting for the stars is a bad idea and growing together is far more important than being an instant husband/wife.

Relationships require work and investment. "Never settle" has translated into "there is always better" for many. It's the same thing that happens when children become adults. They grow less tolerant of things, and with that comes less willingness to see past their initial judgment.

> most people do just fine with any partner which meets some set of minimal values, followed by growing together and overcoming obstacles

I can't help but wonder how many of these couples -- who decided to marry without having mutual care, validation, respect, and attraction to one another beforehand -- are actually happy (let alone content) and not cheating on or otherwise abusing one another.

>This is a bullshit theory with zero evidence or science behind it

There is lots of evidence that having too many partners damage the ability to form deep love relationship. For men and for women.

Please cite it! (And no, not from the IFS, please.)

> I’m on my second marriage now

I think you're unknowingly proving his point.

Other than the legal and financial ramifications, it’s not significantly different than any other breakup of a relationship due to poor fit. Don’t read into it too much.

In quite a lot of cultural traditions, the point of marriage is supposed to be that it is significantly different and you won't break up due to poor fit. I don't mean this as a personal callout, I'm glad you've found happiness, but when people complain about serial monogamy creating "a loose bond" what they mean is that it makes your view of marriage seem obvious and their view of marriage seem impractical.

> In quite a lot of cultural traditions, the point of marriage is supposed to be that it is significantly different and you won't break up due to poor fit.

Which is not to say that you can't end up with a poor fit anyway. You're just compelled by social expectations (if not legal requirements) to stay together despite the poor fit, often to the detriment of everyone involved.

Sometimes people do give up too easily, and could make the marriage work if they just had a bit more incentive to try. That's where systems which grant marriage more permanence shine. But on other occasions the problems run deeper, and separation may well be the correct answer.

In any case, since people have learned that they can get most of what they want out of a relationship without actually getting married, stronger / less reversible marriages just tend to discourage people from getting married in the first place.

It is significantly different, and while I'm glad you're happy, a second marriage is pretty damning evidence that the loose bond suggested above exists.

No it isn't, because the tight bonds that can be formed in subsequent marriages can be very real. The strength of an interpersonal romantic bond might have some correlation with the age or order in which you met them, but that doesn't mean you can't have even stronger bonds later in life with later partners.

Certainly, but the first marriage failed? SO the bond was loose

Sure, but that's a tautological statement. If I hadn't chosen to divorce, the bond would also still be loose, but as an outside observer, you wouldn't see that.

My mother and father are both twice divorced, and only now late in life have found enormously happy relationships, like, relationships they never thought were possible after the first marriage, and indeed, now that the stress of trying to collectively but not really raise three kids is gone, my mother and father are kind of friends, and my mother adores the lady my father is about to be married to.

The fact of the matter is, a previous relationship failing doesn't have to mean anything. You can grow as a person, fix previous faults, learn how to interact with people who you don't 100% mesh with. As most things in life, it matters the effort you put into it, and then you can always get very lucky.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com