Social expectations surrounding relationships.

[TimewaveZero]

Just here to express my opinion / view on this. Feel free to do the same, I'd be quite intrigued to hear your contribution.
 
Why is it that everyone so freely conforms to the expectations of what a 'relationship' consists of? For example, there is a pair at my school, who have shared common interests in each other for quite some time, and although this has been obvious, they never  did anything such as constant flirtatious mannerisms, being all "cutesy" and shit, but, as soon as they became labeled as "in a relationship" (on facebook mind you), all this nonsense kicks into action! Why is it, that the moment this label is associated to a pair of individuals, they take on the role of what is expected? Same goes for other things... do people actually get genuinely upset when they're boyfriend / girlfriend cheats on them? or is it only because that is what they are told they should do?

[achre]

People naturally "conform" to the conventions of relationships because the fundamentals of romantic relationships have ensured the continuity of the human race since the beginning of society. It's stable and healthy and expediates the creation of families. We naturally feel a sense of betrayal and loss and directed anger when something we've invested time and effort and emotion into (in this instance, a relationship) is compromised or damaged (here, through a non faithful partner). Are you being genuine when you ask if people "genuinely" get upset when cheated on?
I think what you're asking about is why (what you identify as) a 'label' changes the way two people act around each other - as opposed to when just flirting. Acknowldgement of a relationship is acknowledgment of a committment. I know at least one couple who are happy to date (the term "date" being somewhat generous) outside of the relationship. Some people would say that requires a higher level of trust. I'd say it just means they're not really in a relationship at all.

[TimewaveZero]

I'd just like to ask, how could confining your sexual activity to one individual "ensure the continuity of the human race"? I have nothing against people in long term relationships, or even the idea of long term relationships in fact, just more of the idea that people so easily do / behave exactly what is the 'social norm'.

[Professor Polonsky]

Yeah people are naturally jealous assholes

[Chazef]

imo if they're doing that stuff after getting the 'relationship' label, they probably already wanted to do that stuff but felt uncomfortable doing it without having the security of being in a relationship. Also it's pretty simple why people feel bad in a breakup, it's just evolutionary psychology: people (women in particular) require a partner who will invest their own time to raise the children thus allowing the genes to be continued and so it's obvious that it's beneficial for people to deplore those who are okay with cheating and even more so to be upset when it happens as a deterrence from letting it happen in the first place. BTW fun fact: women are more likely to be denigrated for sexual promiscuity than men because men need to know that their kid is their own so they can pass on their genes; and women who have sex with multiple partners have a higher chance of having a child whose biological father isn't the same as the parental father. So yeah women care more about men having personal fidelity so they stick around to raise the kid and men care more about sexual fidelity so they know their kid is their own; it's all about dem genes. Anyway this is the evo-psych perspective (or as best as I can recall it) and although clearly society has improved to surpass our evolutionary ancestry, there's still no harm in investigating the past as explanations for some aspects of the present

[brenden]

I would agree that people conform to some perceived expectation. I think it's probably e cause they dot know what they're meant to be doing and dot know how to forge their own relationship.
Of course people are legitimately mad when another cheats lol. That is literally what a definition of a relationship is. "You can't screw other people".

[achre]

I'd just like to ask, how could confining your sexual activity to one individual "ensure the continuity of the human race"? I have nothing against people in long term relationships, or even the idea of long term relationships in fact, just more of the idea that people so easily do / behave exactly what is the 'social norm'.

I'll take that back actually, when I said "human race", I meant to say human civillization, as I don't believe humans can exist peaceably with one another while indiscriminately partner swapping, chiefly because of the jealousy component mentioned upthread, and secondly because it hurts families by introducing multiple parental figures. Are you in favour of polygamy? (Not rhetorical.)

[brenden]

I honestly think polyamory is more natural than polygamy, the latter being a social convention.

[TimewaveZero]

But you see, that's exactly where my problem lies. That people feel it is necessary to be in a relationship to do what they want to do. I just can't fathom how/why a label can create such an inhibition of sexual freedom.

[ShortBlackChick]

I think an expectation exists when it becomes socially accepted to partake in certain activites. Using OP's example of all that cutesy shit, maybe the couple felt that now that they were 'official' (on fb at least) that it was acceptable for them to do that stuff publicly, whereas before they may have felt they'd be judged for it, or they themselves may have felt uncomfortable doing it. I think the point I'm making is that rather than this being an expectation, maybe its rather that its accepted for them to do that stuff when before it was not so much- The label gives acceptance and freedom rather than an expectation.

Also consider that they may just be in honeymoon period

[Chazef]

"how could confining your sexual activity to one individual "ensure the continuity of the human race"

actually I saw a study that as men have more orgasms in a relationship, they tend to become less attracted to the female and the opposite occurs with the female which also coincides with what I said above about women attaching themselves to somebody to ensure the children are raised and thus genes are continued, and men primarily wanting to get there genes in as many people as possible. In that way it's certainly beneficial for a female to confine sexual activity to one individual as it will ensure that the man stays around but the same is not always true for the male. A male may choose to raise the children with that partner or may choose to go and spread their genes elsewhere; whatever maximises their chance of continuing their genes.

Also I understand what I'm saying sounds curt but I'm just offering a possible explanation which considers natural selection BACK IN THE DAY. I'm not claiming evolution is the be-all-end-all of the situation but it does have an effect

[brenden]

But you see, that's exactly where my problem lies. That people feel it is necessary to be in a relationship to do what they want to do. I just can't fathom how/why a label can create such an inhibition of sexual freedom.

Because women are demonised for being sexually free lol.

[achre]

I just can't see it as feasible, in no small part due to my not knowing any successful polyamorous couples. 1 person loving two people, I get, but the other two loving each other in addition to loving the 2nd seems like it would be difficult to find, much less maintain. Not that I have a problem with it, so long as it's not something facilitated by legislation. (i.e. extending it to polygamy)
Can someone explain to me what the virtue of sexual freedom is?

[TimewaveZero]

Because women are demonised for being sexually free lol.

Maybe the source of my inability to comprehend this, is because I personally don't care about people thoughts, whereas others do. If I were a woman, and I was demonised for being sexually free, I could simply not care less haha.

[brenden]

I just can't see it as feasible, in no small part due to my not knowing any successful polyamorous couples. 1 person loving two people, I get, but the other two loving each other in addition to loving the 2nd seems like it would be difficult to find, much less maintain. Not that I have a problem with it, so long as it's not something facilitated by legislation. (i.e. extending it to polygamy)
Can someone explain to me what the virtue of sexual freedom is?

Banging who you want (assuming that person is consenting). Or even, being able to want to bang people you aren't in a relationship with unhindered by some gross thought of social ramifications.

Maybe the source of my inability to comprehend this, is because I personally don't care about people thoughts, whereas others do. If I were a woman, and I was demonised for being sexually free, I could simply not care less haha.

Yes, if you were a woman, not if you grew up as a girl lol