Is marriage riskier for a man or woman?

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

This post is going to be empty by my personal sentiments on this regard.

I am going to look at this from an evolutionary perspective. Regardless of I like what I say or not.

I think marriage is not natural for humans. Hence why, so many of them fail.

I also think marriage was established as a way to let biologically not very fit men to spread their genes and hold a place on a sexual marketplace, where without marriage they would simply go extinct due to high competition to more sexually fit males and a male ability to have an offspring with more than one person. So, 2 fit men could easily have children with hundreds of women and leaving it unable for the rest of the men to survive.

It would lead violence and killings. So, people had to think of an restraint to keep the majority of women away from having children with the minority of men.

Hence, why marriage established and I have read a lot of information how it benefits men more than women.

This question was inspired by one of the comments I came across here where an older married man stated he likes younger woman and he’d happily divorce his older wife to chase younger women.

One more proof, how unnatural marriage is.

I was thinking, it might be risky for all parties involved but isn’t it riskier for women, who lose their precious time, give children to a man who they got with instead of having the children with the best possible males available, they chose you. Woman’s sexual “price” falls with age. So, woman sacrifices her whole life and also the future fitness of her offspring, just to be with you and then be thrown away by this very same barely attractive man, when she gets older.

So she gets to waste her best reproductive years with him and gets thrown away like nothing, once she no longer is fit for child bearing.

Isn’t marriage far more risky and dangerous for women BIOLOGICALLY speaking?

Updates

9 mo

People, I don’t mean what’s right and wrong, or what I like or dislike. I am asking this question purely out of BIOLOGICAL perspective.

[RavVid]

First I want to say I like an evolutionary framework approach. Bio ethics explain a lot about us. I tend to think the nastier less reputable aspects of us come from sexual impulses that worked well in Two Million BC (there is a movie with that name also) and the darker dirtier reaches of our sex brains reflect that.

In short I am very happy to discuss & argue evolutionary scenarios with you. Hopefully there is some enlightenment in that. Overall though I think that as marriage is universal there are benefits for guys and gals.


Now it is hard to object to your analysis per se, but the whole issue of which men get to fuck which females is more multi-dimensional than what you are arguing I would argue.

Who gets to fuck who is the origins of all politics and may be why men are typically more interested in politics. It takes 3 boss chimps to dominate a troop of chimp females. An alliance is necessary. But bonobo chimp girls struck back and they fuck all the other chimps - including other girls - all the time. The best sperm cell wins is a valid bioeth strategy for females.

Lets look at hunters and gatherer societies. Not all men are equal so it is not marxist. Some men are going to be better at throwing a spear than others. In other words some will be better hunters than others. But the reason why humans are good at killing much bigger animals then ourselves is because we individually weaker animals team up... and we use our minds in a way that say lions just don't. So it is 50 adult men against one buffalo. Lets say there are three men who are much better at throwing spears and a bit braver at running in and finishing the buffalo off.

Those 3 men should get all the girls on your scenario. They are bigger stronger and if any of the weaker guys objects to one of them fucking his girl for a change well a bit of biff should sort that out. Actually H&G tribes are usually about 50 strong. I've seen claims that homicide rates go up unsustainably above that level. In 2 Million BC we can assume human men liked to fuck just as much as men do now.

The rest of weaker men probably don't appreciate the rules that the top 3 alphas get to have all the girls all the time. So while the weaker male is watching the alpha fucking his girl in doggy (as in a scene in 2 Mill BC - but in that Racquel Welch picks a stone and puts it in her vagina) he has ample opportunity to grab a spear and stick it in said alpha. So Alphas need to be more discreet than this.

Now the weakest man in the tribe might have been the best tracker. He was the beta who finds the buffalo. The Alphas should cut him in on fucking the girls. The rest of the betas who function as beaters driving the buffalo to the alphas possibly thought fuck this we are tired of not getting to fuck the girls. So they just say we're off see you later. The girls - not liking beta's much - happily wave the beta's off with don't hurry backs & take your time and gather around the alphas and fuck all the alphas.

Sadly the Alpha's are not as good at bringing home the bacon any more. The buffalo easily escapes them. The girls start thinking those beta's weren't too bad - some of them had six packs - maybe we should give them a second chance. So they follow the meat and go to the beta's. Soon all the girls are with the beta's and happily fucking their brains out for bacon and the apha's are reduced to wanking over rock paintings.

The bioeth moral here it is very difficult for a few alpha's to have all the girls.

Effectively some form of allocating guys and girls is desirable at a societal level and a heavily pregnant woman or nursing mother really did need the support of a man with bacon. There are lot of different strategies possible. It is indeed best for a girl to mate with the best possible male. As a side chick though you have less guarantees than as a wife. The best male might not be as willing to support you through pregnancy and nursing if you are just girl #5. He is more likely to move on when your breasts sag.

Importantly as a pregger or nursing mom you need the support of the girls. Female politics are brutal. As a side chick girl #5 you are taking resources away from girls #4, 3, 2, and 1. If you ask them to help in the birth they might just say fuck off slut.

So while marriage hasn't been that comfortable, I am not convinced it isn't a good overall compromise since it has been used for about 2,000 generations.


by the way. With Australian Aborigines, it was the elders who decided who married who. Unborn daughters were pre-allocated as wives on I do this for you and you do this for me deals. Unsurprisingly the elders got all the nubile girls as wives! But they did accommodate the young bucks by renting the wives out for services rendered. Typically they had three camps: the women's camp, the young bucks camp and the elders camp in between to keep control.

Now what I am going to say next once got me three web pages of hate responses to my letter to the editor of a newspaper. It was a splendid result.

BBTW. Bioethics wasn't all posies and haunches of bacon for girls. Breeding started pretty soon after puberty and even before then the mothers would start stretching the girls vaginas to more comfortably accommodate an adult penis. Since it was known which guy the girl was betrothed to maybe stretching was customized to said man. Just hypothesizing - dunno. In parts of Africa from what I have read the elder women run sex camps for nubile girls who are taught how to fuck practicing on each other. The nubile girls were encouraged to start off with the elder guys. If a young women was inclined to get too wet she was taught to powder up chalk to make her drier and hence more pleasurable for the man.

BBBTW. On bioethics it is advantageous for a woman to conceive in rape because if she has a son then probably he'll turn out just like dear old dad and do a fair bit of raping too. If he does her genes will be propagated more widely. Now I am not saying that any of us specifically think I want my genes to dominate this tribe - it just works out that way is all. The girl who thought awww he's dangerous... I have to flirt with Himmm possibly crowded nicer girls out of the gene pool. Might explain the bad boy attraction and rape fantasies.

BBBBTW. Somebody is bound to say stuff the men. Girls could make spears and go hunting and didn't need no man. It is completely true H&G women hunted but only small game such as lizards. Just didn't work for bigger game. This is true across all extant H&G's.

BBBBBTW. Romantic marriage only started being a middle class thing in the 1800's. Women's mags back then were advising that it was better to be an old maid than married to a man you didn't love OR EVEN RESPECT and were further told they were insulting the institution of marriage if they did. Seems to be an echo of that today. Till the 1800's women just didn't marry for love and you can guess what they did marry for

BBBBBBTW. I have no idea if Racquel Welch's technique of pushing a smooth river stone in has a historical basis for either birth control or anti rape protection. It has to be rated as a distinct possibility but it would need a string around it you would think.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Thought provoking

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

At last, someone who gives me the answer I was looking for.

Now I wonder in your opinion why do women outlive men in terms of longevity assuming they are no longer carrying reproductive power after 50?

[RavVid]

OK I had not thought of this at all - good question. Why do men and women outlive their reproductive capabilities and women outlive men in particular?

Overall, lifespans increased substantially not through better medical treatment but because of better nutrition. The last famine in Europe was only 160 years ago. A famine in Europe is unthinkable now. Maybe it is sort of an unintended consequence of having robust reproductive capabilities earlier? In particular for women child birth is a high risk. Not so much now but without the medical care we now have, a woman dying in child birth would be common. Instead of 1 or 2, 6 or more children would happen for a very healthy woman.

Clearly from a species view we needed women to pump them out. Replacement is 2.1 babies now but back then it must have been much higher. Hard to guess at. At least 3 or 4. Given some women might die in the first, the other women would need to have her share. So at first thought we might say that women needed to be healthier for the biological role and that could have the consequences of living longer after reproductive capability ceases. We could presumably test this from medical knowledge.

[RavVid]

Men's reproductive capability lasts longer. That might reflect men being more likely to die in hunting or disputes internal and external to the tribe as well as a lightweight part to play. If all the young blokes get killed, the older guys could still impregnate the females. Handy to have that reserve capability.

I can see one further benefit for both men and women outliving their reproductive capabilities. Before writing knowledge could only be passed on verbally (after language developed) and by demonstration before then. Clearly this happened with stone tools because different styles developed. Neanderthals had an entirely different and better way of making them than homo sapien sapien If it was done with stone tools it would happen in other areas. The wise woman would pass on knowledge of healing herbs, how to treat wounds, post childbirth issues. The wise man about game and tracking.

I think we can be quite certain that older people running a life university would be advantageous to our species. This is one thing we can be certain of. We went from stone tools that were dubious of whether they were fortunately shaped by nature or manufactured by man to very finely made tools. It is quite possible the various hominid species weren't distinct species at all and just transmogrified into us. Neanderthals, sapiens and florensians interbred and so don't pass the distinct species test.

I am far less confident in my first thoughts on why women out live men. Maybe those thoughts might make you think of others. I would like to hear yours.

[RavVid]

Thank you for the kind comment. Glad it contributed.

[dynamicyandere]

Biologically speaking, it is riskier for women.


Legally speaking, it’s riskier for men in the United States, but it may be riskier for women even still, in certain conservative countries.


Back to biology though, to optimize the survival of the mother and child, it would make sense for women to find the best mate they could find to provide the best genes, the best protection, and the best provision.


(Which would be the top percentile of men, leading to a polygamous arrangement, like a pride of lions who share one alpha male.)


However, to build a larger society and to prevent civil unrest, it’s beneficial to promote monogamy, so that people can be pacified and not be so preoccupied with fighting over mates.


Families stabilize society and the lack of families destabilize society.


Single men, without families, are the most likely to be involved in criminal behavior.


When they have a family, their priorities change (or should change) so that they focus on protecting and providing for their family.


From an emotional fulfillment perspective though, I believe monogamy also has a place. Undivided time and attention and quality time is definitely a powerful thing.


I’d say for fulfillment, I’m pro monogamy. With monogamy, once can connect at a much deeper and intimate level, compared to having attention divided too thinly among many people.


For survival though, I understand how polygamy (for the top percentile of men) would make sense.

[dynamicyandere]

one can connect*

The best of both worlds would be a top percentile man choosing to be monogamous with a top percentile woman.

[Sitaraxx]

"For survival though, I understand how polygamy (for the top percentile of men) would make sense."
What do you mean by for survival? So for a top percentile man to survive he HAS to sleep with multiple women rather than just 1 for the rest of his life?

[dynamicyandere]

@Sitaraxx Sorry for not being more clear. I could have worded that better.

I mean in a survival context, pre-civilization before modern society.

For the survival of offspring, it would only be natural for women to want to choose who can provide for them and protect them the best.

Men are naturally competitive, so a spectrum would naturally form, with the best providers and protectors at the top, and the worst at the bottom.

At a time where there is war, famine, and lack of advanced medical care, it would be in a woman’s best interest to be in the care of a man who has the power and resources to keep her and her offspring safe.

Even if that man already has other women, who also want to be with him for safety and security.

This is to ensure that the woman’s bloodline survives.

Now, for the man’s bloodline to survive, he would need a healthy woman to marry and protect and care for.

However, in dire times of survival, where women die in labor, children die of diseases, and there is risk of war and famine.

For the survival of his bloodline, it would be in his best interest to have many children.

And, it is easier to have many children when one has more than one wife.

So, for the survival of bloodlines, for men and women, polygamy makes sense. (In a practical way.)

Now, is it romantic? No.

Is it right? No. Not necessarily. It’s just ‘practical’.

Is it how things should be? No. We are living in times where survival of our bloodline is not our top priority.

For those in 1st world countries, actualization and fulfillment tends to be the goal, rather than mere survival.

And that’s where monogamy fits in.

It allows for intimacy, depth, and romance. It’s beautiful.

But, it’s also a luxury in the context of a survival situation filled with death, war, and famine.

[BasedBaeBecca]

It is difficult to generalize the risks of marriage for men and woman as individuals may interpret and approach marriage differently. There are certainly biological and social factors that impact men and woman differently, and these dynamics can influence their individual decisions and perspectives. Marriage in and of itself is not inherently risky for either group; rather, it is the attitude and actions of the individuals within the relationship that ultimately determine how successful and fulfilling the marriage will be. Overall, it is important for both men and woman to make informed decisions and strive to create a relationship based on trust, communication, respect, and mutual happiness.

[Apple1996]

More risky for the women especially in a traditional marriage. For a lot of women we sacrifice our bodies, mental health, time, careers, schooling, family/friends relationships. Even more risky if the man happens to be abusive (mentally, physically, financially). Men are the opposite and all those things are improved while being married.

Also men that wanna cry about losing money in a divorce are just disgusting. If that happens it's because he owes her that money for basically being his fucking slave for x amount of years. They're just mad cuz they finally have to pay up for being a pos husband. Women don't leave for no reason.

[OlderAndWiser]

The idea that things which are "natural" must be good for us, or better for us, is naive and misguided. Consider:

Asbestos

Hemlock

Oleander

Poison Ivy

Clostridium botulinum

Whether something is natural has no bearing on whether it is good, healthy, adaptive, etc.

[exitseven]

@OlderAndWiser. I love the term "organic". It is used when somebody wants to charge more money for their products. I go to a supermarket that has an "organic foods" section. Does that mean all the rest of the stuff they sell is "inorganic,"?

[OlderAndWiser]

@exitseven "Organic" is all about marketing. I had an SO drag me into a Whole Foods (paradise of the useful idiots) years ago and I recall seeing something labeled "Rain Forest Granola." Can someone please explain exactly WITF granola and the rain forest have in common?

[exitseven]

@OlderAndWiser. There is a Whole Foods in the next town. I went there once to buy something. I never saw such a pretentious, entitled group of people in my whole life. Most were still wearing masks and giving me the stink eye because I did not.

[OlderAndWiser]

@exitseven All mindless sheep!

[Zatsuma]

Things that make you go hmmm 🤔

[andreasderjuengere]

nice one :)

[cloud9vortex1234]

It can be hard to find the right person to marry. Your dealing with morals, looks, as well as career. If a guy is killing it as far as his career is concerned and making bank then I would reason to think women would be willing to not be so obsessed with looks. In my opinion, the Married Guys your referring to are not good and decent people and are low on morals, and it can take some time to see how somebody really is as a person. Most women (and men) are limited on time and are not going to find exactly what their looking for. When it comes to marriage, I think where you live really depends on who it is risker for. I don't its risker for women in the U. S. because I live here and from my opinion their incentivizing guys not to get married. Most women want to marry a man who has more money then she does, and if she ends up making she usually leaves the guy. That's Female Nature, but guys can be Financially Ruined here in Divorce Court (50% chance of divorce. Its very easy to divorce here.) and it can be almost impossible to come back from it financially because she can get half of what he took years to work for. All and all its just a lousy deal no matter how you look at it for guys in the west. That's not to say there aren't Terrible Men that women marry that obviously are at fault because there are some Horrible Men out there. Biologically, I would say its more a risk for women, but guys in general men are naturally more Physically Attracted to women in their 20s everywhere because that's when their the most fertile. That doesn't mean he's going to be Lousy Husband and leave his Older Wife for Younger Women he hardly even knows. If women are good to their husbands then he will be less likely to push them away as well. I think I've said enough.

[TheUniqueOne96]

Men, because they lose everything that takes years to earn, as well as their kids, because divorce courts fuck them over.

To all the women on here saying it's men's fault for being shitty husbands...

Which gender initiates more divorces?

Which gender wants to marry more?

Which gender refuses to take accountability for their own shitty behavior and even get sympathy from society, even if the marriage ended because the woman cheated?

Which gender can just abort the child, because she feels like it?

Which gender leaves because they 'got bored' ?

Didn't Halle Berry complain about child support, despite being rich AF?

This feminist garbage has turned some women into misandrist trash who want to take zero responsibility for their own bullshit, whilst enjoying the perks of both modern and traditional women and shaming men who dare not to find them attractive by desperately creating marketing campaigns for women.

'Accept me for being a fat bitch' - what about for fat men.

'Body hair is natural' - what about men who lose their hair, balding is natural.

[TheUniqueOne96]

'Men who care about their money are disgusting'. You take years to fucking build something and then cry when it goes away, so you can moan about some oppression you never experienced.

[Snakeyes7]

Riskier for men.

Thanks to no fault divorce, the rate is at least 50-50, women are more likely to initiate it (why? We don't know because they aren't required to prove that the contract has been broken prior to the filing), the divorce courts heavily favor women (recieving custody, alimony, child support, etc).

If the wife turns out to be abusive, he has no choice but to take it because showing any sign of resistance could have a heavy cost of her taking nearly everything he spent his life trying to build. To rub more salt into the wound, he can't fight back because, thanks to the Duluth Model, she can just say he struck first and get him arrested.

What man would risk half of his earnings, several years of his life and all his emotional efforts knowing that it can be taken from him at the whim of a woman who just wakes up one day and decided she didn't love him anymore?

I have had some people say that I don't believe in love, and they are correct. I wish I could believe but whether I do or don't won't mean anything when the system this "love" is supposed to rest on doesn't believe in it either and profits off of broken marriages to boot.

[Anonymous]

It's pretty even anymore. If you asked this 50 to 75 years. Ago I'd say a woman hands down. But women can earn her own living now. She's not at the mercy of a man. She can f*** around all she wants and not only not deal with any social ramifications for it. But nor any occupational ramifications for it either.

a lot of women don't get this is why men don't marry anymore. Men really haven't changed. But the social structure has changed. Men are not needed anymore. Most women only want a guy in short bursts, an occasional f*** buddy. Even if a woman chooses a man. Her heart isn't in it anymore. She'll get married but solely on her terms now. Women do not want partnerships. Well why would any guy sign on for that? There is no lifetime commitment. Instead if you marry her she stays with you till she bores of you... maybe 5-10 years. And what does that cost the guy? Half of everything he's made in his life... for 5 or 10 years? No thank you!

There just is nothing in it for a man anymore. Just call him any time you want to get your f*** on. Clearly your gender still wants that.

[ProbablyClueless]

It seems pretty risky for both men and women.

As many horror stories as we hear about women rinsing men through the court system, a lot of women seem to get screwed pretty hard too. It doesn't even seem to take much time either. I know a lady who met her husband a year before they got married. They got married and 2 months later, they got divorced. This was a 14-month-ish relationship. Somehow in that time (and with the help of her apparently wacky childhood), this dude managed to psychologically and emotionally scar this woman, put her into debt, destroy her income and poison her church and familial relationships.

I've known lots of people with stories like that; men and women.

Now... I don't know the full story there (or any other situation), and it's none of my business, but that seems like a pretty impressive amount of damage for someone to do in such a short time.

[MementoMori777]

i can't agree with your opinion, i know marriage is healthy and i personally believe they all fail because people lack commitment, people are shit, they behave like animals and having your loyalty and commitment to one woman is healthy in my opinion, I've seen many people with this mentality of yours and they are strippers and prostitutes smh, the one that has more risk are men and yes its specifically only because of financial penalties, women dont have any but besides that the risk is equal because both put commitment, time and effort into it and when it fails, it goes down the shitter but the idea of marriage isn't to blame, its the lack of commitment and the fact that people jump into marriages and not take it as serious as they should.

[Lynx122]

What you say makes 0 sense. So how did the unfit men who are weaker and have no power set the rules for marriage? Marriage obviously benefits women and children because 2 guys can fuck 100 women and make hundreds of children but they can't feed them all can they? In todays world it would be possible if they're rich but back in the day where you had to hunt gather or farm for your food 2 men feeding 100 families was impossible. Marriage was designed to create stability in society and not have a bunch of single moms who have nobody supporting them because that would have sucked in the middle ages. Imagine half your population is dying of the plague and then on top of that, the ones that do survive, you have homeless women and children because the guy just left and they're begging for food. Does that sound like a fun prosperous society to you?

None of what you said makes sense.

[exitseven]

It is riskier for men. I personally know guys that work hard and make good money that end up in a rooming house or moving back in with their parents. One day their wife just decided she did not want to be married to him anymore and the court decided that he had to continue to pay all the expenses for his wife and kids and whatever was left over he could live on that.

[alice55]

riskier for a man wallet and riskier for a woman safety. In France you can't divorce if your husband / wife don't want to so you have to stay married even if you don't want to and this include even if the husband is violent also you cannot get out of the house without judge approbation.

[inhua]

marriage was intended to benefit women so they had a loyal male partner who was willing to sacrifice his life to protect her instead of her having to same the same man with multiple other women. plus if a society has too many men doing whatever they want, the society falls apart

[justabuddy]

I would say it benefits weman more than men. But I do think it benefits both of done properly.

It is true that two sexually superior men could impregnate multiple weman. Where does that leave those weman. Either taking care of kids alone or looking for a less sexually superior male to help her take care of those kids. So to me that's a survival of the species instinct and not a thriving society type of instinct, because it just leads to trama.

While if marriage is done properly, the male is the father and not a chump taking care of someone else's kids with a wife who resents him for not being sexually superior. The can share income and chores. Support and love one another. So I believe theirs more to the marriage equation than just sexual genetics.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Marriage typically affords a woman a bodyguard, which makes it less dangerous biologically speaking. Economically it's riskier for the man. Emotionally you could argue it could go either way. Very seldom have I been significantly safer (physically) because of the woman I was with.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

In before some guys go off about how it's worse for guys cause of the financial risk and how women are the ones initiating divorces more often.

Seriously, why are some guys so obsessed about money and then project that on to women?

Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily riskier for one more than the other. Both give up parts of themselves and both gain from it.

[Unit1]

Women don't love moneyless men.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

*yawn*

Some women are all about the money, but some don't care about it. They may not love lazy and shiftless men who can't support them and refuse to work, but it's ok if a guy isn't rich. I mean I make more than my boyfriend and I love him just fine.

[Unit1]

I'll take that back then.

[AviatorTom]

Well a man and woman marry typically expecting to have children, so there is no unexpected risk about getting pregnant. There is a risk to the woman about pregnancy in general but that has nothing to do with marriage.

Economically, marriage is riskier for the man, because most divorces result in the woman getting more and the man getting less... and giving up more.

[Andres77]

If the man is abusive, then it’s riskier for the woman.
But in almost all other cases, it’s risky year for the man, at least in the US.

My ex got the house and I have to pay her $60,000 a year. I should almost be completely retired but now I’m going to have to work at least 10 more years..

[msc545]

Definitely men. We are long past evolutionary stage and evolutionary analysis is not really valid anymore.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I think we are still evolving… It’s not something of the past. We can discuss either we are evolving or actually devolving though.

[msc545]

ok, what is it that you think is evolving or... shudder... devolving?

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Evolution is a slow but a progressive change in our genes, these changes equip us with better skills to survive, reproduce and so on. As long as we keep reproducing evolution is a gradual and a non-stop process that accompanies us, though might only be obvious generations later.

In that sense, it’s impossible to stop evolving, as long as we, as species, are still able to keep on our bloodline.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

As for saying, we are “devolving”, it’s more of an emotional reaction to my disappointment as to what we people do today. I don’t believe we are devolving , we are changing to accommodate the changed environment around us. That might be beneficial in a long run or not.

[Anonymous]

Um, I'll say the vast majority of the time, guys take a risk. Not only will she take his money, she'll take his kids and also get paid for it. She'll shack up with another guy and they both will live off his money. A major reason why guys don't wanna commit anymore.

[AnusNdaPainus]

From a biological perspective marriage is safer for women than being single or hooking up especially

Marriage was invented to protect women and children

this is why men are the gatekeepers of marriage because we take on all the burden

If marriage is unnatural then what is natural?

[Sasha0426]

You say marriage is unnatural, right? But, it’s natural for men to get many women pregnant as possible and have many children. So, wouldn’t that mean tons of women would be left single mothers and many children are left fatherless and not knowing who their biological father is? Meaning love is fake and it’s not worth being in a relationship when the man is going to leave you. That also means men don’t give a shit about their families or the mothers of their children. Am I right so far?

[Sasha0426]

And if we’re going to talk about natural, we might as well kill the existing children if a woman gets pregnant by a different man.

[IeatChickenandFish]

I like this answer, not only disproves OP, but instills hope in a monogomistic relationship