Originally Posted by Magdlyn
The conclusions he draws from his study are really stupid. What a waste of time.
I think the study itself is much more interesting and nuanced than the Huffpo blog post describing it.
For instance, in the study itself, I didn't read Anderson as agreeing with the idea that emotional infidelity was more inherently destabilizing to a monogamous relationship than sexual infidelity. I read him as saying, "Some monogamous people feel more threatened if their partners have an intense emotional connection to a third party than if their partners have a sexual connection to a third party." Which is true: Some people
feel that way. Generally, people on this forum do not.
Looking at the study itself, I noticed that a lot of what seemed to make it harder for the men interviewed to negotiate for a non-monogamous relationship (let alone a poly one) fell under the heading of unexamined assumptions on their own parts-- about what it means to be a man or woman in the U.S., about what it means to love someone, about where emotional security comes from.
It seems to me that actually addressing those assumptions would make the men interviewed better capable of navigating any relationship or set of relationships-- poly, non-monogamous, or mono.
But that's not going to be news to anyone who's already excavated their own assumptions about romantic and/or sexual relationships.