Interesting Times [an opinion piece]
Jul. 11th, 2003 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azekeilThis morning I watched some of Kilroy. I know, it's my own fault really. But it got me thinking. The program was about couples where someone had cheated on their partner and the discussion was about people's experiences with being taken back and given a second chance or not. A man was talking about his remorse and regret at his having an affair and wanting to be taken back.
Up until this point it had been a frank and open exchange of views, with no one jumping down anyone else's throat, people just telling their experiences.
A woman responded to this man with the opening line, "How can you love two people?"
My interest in the program abruptly switched off. Well actually that's not true - my level of empathy for the people involved nosedived. I wanted to see what they said about it. Not a lot - it was accepted implicitly by the audience in their deafening silence on the matter. Sometimes it's a shame the show's producers miss a trick by casting their nets wider to get the BIGGER picture, not just what's socially accepted as the norm. I must admit, I didn't watch the program to the end as I was already late for work.
But in any case, it got me thinking. There are fundamental flaws with monogamy. It's by definition posessive, promoting negative behaviour like jealousy. Because it's the socially accepted norm it is also the default, the ignorant choice. It puts pressure on people to 'find the right person'. It promotes a very insular and introspective style of relationship; in standard marriage vows: '..forsaking all others..'.
The woes of peer pressure continue, promoting living together as the natural next step. One that is often taken without much thought for how it will actually work; what each person's needs are, financial and emotional commitments, etc.
Now, before you get me wrong, this is not a post about monogamy bashing. I know a good few people who are in fantastic monogamous relationships. Polyamoury has a whole host of different flaws as well. For example, there are those who get swinging and polyamoury confused, much to the detriment of all concerned. Polyamoury is not the norm, it is difficult for people to accept, an uphill struggle. Polyamoury forces people to communicate. Also, because it is not the norm, it can do exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve; it can close off whole sections of people. Some dismiss it out of hand as alien, but there are also those who consider it but decide it is not for them.
The legal system and businesses in this country on the whole have no concept of polyamoury let alone consideration for it in their policies. Polygamy is illegal: in some forms it would be classified as bigamy.
It can be a lot more difficult to juggle each person's needs in polyamourous relationships, leading to feelings of being left out, and the same old problems of jealousy. There is of course the issue of increased risk of STDs. Not only is there an increased risk but each person must take responsibility not just for their own health but for the health of every other person in the relationship. Many polyamourous relationships have simple ways of dealing with this.
I explored briefly the possibility of alternative living arrangements, such as a commune or some much more cohesive group than tends to be found in society today. As technology has progressed, it becomes less and less important to give back to the community in which you live as it becomes easier and easier to spend your time elsewhere. Increases in transport and further, increases in difficulty in transport have lead to the breakdown of the community as the foundation of our society. Increases in communication have also had the same effect, but have also lead to the formation of new communities, of which LiveJournal is a great example. Communities which can share similar outlooks on life, interests, attractions, and nearly the whole gamut of human interactions. Of course, this is not without downfalls. It is a lot easier to avoid any sort of responsibility for ones actions in these new-formed communities. Only those communication methods which call for an investment in time and emotional effort will be successful in promoting close-knit communities where people can interact profitably. I personally keep most of my interactions to people I can or have met, by way of increasing responsibility and thus the value of my interactions.
In the advent of diminished responsibility, it can lead to people feeling like they don't belong and they can feel overwhelmed with not being able to find a place to 'fit in' or 'settle'.
I want to consider the social, cultural and political ramifications of the perfect transport system; free teleportation. It would allow communities to interact more freely; promote much more interaction between people and cultures that wouldn't otherwise get to interact. It could open up avenues of trade and skilled working that would have been impossible before.
It also has the potential to start more and bloodier wars than ever before. Security would take on a completely different meaning, and potentially be completely unenforceable. Politics would have to be revolutionised. Countries would no longer exist. Cultures would lack the insulation to generate their cultures in the first place.
Take Britain as an example. As an island it has the world's busiest airports and a high population density for a first-world country. It has been an attractive prospect for many people of all cultures to come and live and work here. The advent of cheap and accessible transport has enabled that.
But as a result of cheap and available transport, people neglect their responsibilities to their local communities and move elsewhere or simply interact elsewhere.
If you look at any group of people today, the ones with the most individual culture and the most community responsibility are those with the least available transport and communication.
You can see the lack of responsibility manifesting itself in modern-day problems, such as increased numbers of single parents. The close-knit communities of the past would have frowned on that sort of outcome and put pressure on the roaming parent to stand up to their responsibilities. Of course, that's not to say that that was the best solution. Violence, abuse and inequality were far more rife then.
The point is that I believe that we are going through a societal and cultural revolution. I have no idea where it will end up but slowly and surely the problems faced by everything from communities right up to world politics is facing the pressures caused by increases in availability of communication and transport. Soon it will reach a point where something will snap, and it will have a cascade effect.
These are interesting times.
Up until this point it had been a frank and open exchange of views, with no one jumping down anyone else's throat, people just telling their experiences.
A woman responded to this man with the opening line, "How can you love two people?"
My interest in the program abruptly switched off. Well actually that's not true - my level of empathy for the people involved nosedived. I wanted to see what they said about it. Not a lot - it was accepted implicitly by the audience in their deafening silence on the matter. Sometimes it's a shame the show's producers miss a trick by casting their nets wider to get the BIGGER picture, not just what's socially accepted as the norm. I must admit, I didn't watch the program to the end as I was already late for work.
But in any case, it got me thinking. There are fundamental flaws with monogamy. It's by definition posessive, promoting negative behaviour like jealousy. Because it's the socially accepted norm it is also the default, the ignorant choice. It puts pressure on people to 'find the right person'. It promotes a very insular and introspective style of relationship; in standard marriage vows: '..forsaking all others..'.
The woes of peer pressure continue, promoting living together as the natural next step. One that is often taken without much thought for how it will actually work; what each person's needs are, financial and emotional commitments, etc.
Now, before you get me wrong, this is not a post about monogamy bashing. I know a good few people who are in fantastic monogamous relationships. Polyamoury has a whole host of different flaws as well. For example, there are those who get swinging and polyamoury confused, much to the detriment of all concerned. Polyamoury is not the norm, it is difficult for people to accept, an uphill struggle. Polyamoury forces people to communicate. Also, because it is not the norm, it can do exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve; it can close off whole sections of people. Some dismiss it out of hand as alien, but there are also those who consider it but decide it is not for them.
The legal system and businesses in this country on the whole have no concept of polyamoury let alone consideration for it in their policies. Polygamy is illegal: in some forms it would be classified as bigamy.
It can be a lot more difficult to juggle each person's needs in polyamourous relationships, leading to feelings of being left out, and the same old problems of jealousy. There is of course the issue of increased risk of STDs. Not only is there an increased risk but each person must take responsibility not just for their own health but for the health of every other person in the relationship. Many polyamourous relationships have simple ways of dealing with this.
I explored briefly the possibility of alternative living arrangements, such as a commune or some much more cohesive group than tends to be found in society today. As technology has progressed, it becomes less and less important to give back to the community in which you live as it becomes easier and easier to spend your time elsewhere. Increases in transport and further, increases in difficulty in transport have lead to the breakdown of the community as the foundation of our society. Increases in communication have also had the same effect, but have also lead to the formation of new communities, of which LiveJournal is a great example. Communities which can share similar outlooks on life, interests, attractions, and nearly the whole gamut of human interactions. Of course, this is not without downfalls. It is a lot easier to avoid any sort of responsibility for ones actions in these new-formed communities. Only those communication methods which call for an investment in time and emotional effort will be successful in promoting close-knit communities where people can interact profitably. I personally keep most of my interactions to people I can or have met, by way of increasing responsibility and thus the value of my interactions.
In the advent of diminished responsibility, it can lead to people feeling like they don't belong and they can feel overwhelmed with not being able to find a place to 'fit in' or 'settle'.
I want to consider the social, cultural and political ramifications of the perfect transport system; free teleportation. It would allow communities to interact more freely; promote much more interaction between people and cultures that wouldn't otherwise get to interact. It could open up avenues of trade and skilled working that would have been impossible before.
It also has the potential to start more and bloodier wars than ever before. Security would take on a completely different meaning, and potentially be completely unenforceable. Politics would have to be revolutionised. Countries would no longer exist. Cultures would lack the insulation to generate their cultures in the first place.
Take Britain as an example. As an island it has the world's busiest airports and a high population density for a first-world country. It has been an attractive prospect for many people of all cultures to come and live and work here. The advent of cheap and accessible transport has enabled that.
But as a result of cheap and available transport, people neglect their responsibilities to their local communities and move elsewhere or simply interact elsewhere.
If you look at any group of people today, the ones with the most individual culture and the most community responsibility are those with the least available transport and communication.
You can see the lack of responsibility manifesting itself in modern-day problems, such as increased numbers of single parents. The close-knit communities of the past would have frowned on that sort of outcome and put pressure on the roaming parent to stand up to their responsibilities. Of course, that's not to say that that was the best solution. Violence, abuse and inequality were far more rife then.
The point is that I believe that we are going through a societal and cultural revolution. I have no idea where it will end up but slowly and surely the problems faced by everything from communities right up to world politics is facing the pressures caused by increases in availability of communication and transport. Soon it will reach a point where something will snap, and it will have a cascade effect.
These are interesting times.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 04:01 am (UTC)I completely agree with what you're saying about relationships and transport. A communal way of life is more natural but people are far too busy in the pursuit of money and leisure activities to do much for the community these days.
Right, I'm off to invent a teleporter now, mwhaahhhh
no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 04:03 am (UTC)But it made me think, which is a change. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 04:09 am (UTC)I've had plans for one on the bench for over 10 years, but I daren't do anything with them for fear of getting lynched by all the major car manufacturers, rail companies, airlines..... :P
Re:
Date: 2003-07-11 04:17 am (UTC)Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 05:19 am (UTC)So much to think about...so much to say in response!
This is gonna take time...and I'm gonna be thrashing it out 'on paper' so to speak...the ideas will not be fully-formed and it's gonna be more of a discussion...and exchange of ideas...than a treatise...
...I'll be finding out what I think by reading what I said :-)
So, if I say stuff you disagree with, I'm happy to hear why...just please don't take anything I say as an attack/reproach/whatever...
Initially I'm just gonna throw out some quick thoughts...and probably develop/explain them properly as time/discussion goes by
OK?
First of all, let me state that I have in my life, been in the unfortunate position of loving two people at the same time...and eventually had to make a choice between one or the other...so I know from the 'inside' what we're talking about
I've been a bit of a serial monogomist too...a couple of long-term relationships lasting longer than many marriages!
Does that count as polyamoury?...How limited a thing is polyamoury?...Must it necessarily be time-constrained to the present?
I think your a priori adherance to marriage as the basis of a relationship needs to be questioned...polyamoury is not illegal...bigamy is.
Bigamy is the crime of 'legally' marrying more than one partner...Polyamoury is the act of loving more than one person.
If you don't wanna commit bigamy, don't get married...polyamoury is then perfectly possible.
Financially/legally you can make provision for whomever you like and vice versa, so the technical issues are just that: technicalities...So you have to name one person as your next of kin for insurance purposes...So what?...Just make a will stipulating that before they may actually touch any of the funds/property/whatever they must act as the executor of your will...which divides the proceeds up amongst your chosen recipients.
Again, polyamoury is not impossible,just bigamy.
The difficulties imposed by the issue of (diminished) responsibility are not new...nor unique to polyamoury. Being in a monogomous relationship versus a polyamourous one is not the issue. Responsibility is. just because you're in a monogomous relationship does not guarantee you any more or less that your partner will behave responsibly...which is clearly indicated by the number of divorces/break-ups due to infidelity...if your partner is unfaithful and irresponsible then the dangers are just the same as if you have more than one partner...so choose your partner(s) carefully!
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 06:07 am (UTC)I'm glad I got you thinking with what I posted. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
My post covers a whole range of topics and was almost mapping of my thought process into written word. I thought it would be interesting for people to see the way in which my mind worked in this instance.
I never thought for one second I would have covered each of the mammoth topics in enough detail for my satisfaction; they are merely starting points for further conversation.. as your replies so clearly point out!
Anyway, to cover some of your points in this part:
- Polyamoury does not define a person; it merely is a way of expressing a past or present preference for a relationship structure that is not monoamoury.
- I used the example of the marriage vows when talking in the context of monogamy as supposedly the epitome of monogamy is marriage? I certainly accept however that more people nowadays choose not to engage in a legal joining.
- I said that polygamy is illegal, not polyamoury. I certainly believe people can make their own legal/financial arrangements but I was pointing out that it is not accepted/recognised by the law and businesses in general, by their lack of policies specifically including these sorts of relationships.
- I was referring to diminished responsibility in terms of peoples' interactions online, rather than in the context of polyamorous relationships. But of course, just because monogamy places more emphasis on finding 'the one', the perceived danger is that people in polyamorous relationships can and will accept lower standards in the people they choose to see. This is a double-edged sword. Perhaps you love seeing person X because of their sparkling wit. You might not want to live with them or raise children with them because your financial and emotional sides don't mesh so well but that is less of a concern because you're not asking for them to provide you with everything you want in a relationship. Often that's where [monogamous] relationships fail.
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 07:28 am (UTC)Surely a person's make-up consists in no small part of their preferences for a particular type of relationship...a person inclined to polyamoury is not the same kind of person as one inclinedto monamoury?
Maybe I'mmissing some subtleties in your point, but I feel that everything a person thinks, says, does..their preferences, thought processes, behaviours...is what defines them as the person they are rather than someone else
Given your comment that "I certainly accept however that more people nowadays choose not to engage in a legal joining.
" I am not sure why you make such a point of the legal issues surrounding polygamy...unless, of course, you feel that your life is somehow constrained by the lack of a legal option
Personally, I feel the whole issue of legally binding relationship is irrelevant...hence the fact that I have never married...I love who I love...have a relationship with them...live with them or not, as I choose...it is no business the State*, as far as I am concened, and I do not feel the need to have my relationships validated by others...that is surely done by the quality of the relationships I have with the people concerned..from friewdship to full-blown relationship.
* or anybody else, for that matter
>the perceived danger is that people in polyamorous relationships can and will accept lower standards in the people they choose to see
Howso?..I do not see how the investment by a person in a polyamourous relationshi differs from that of a person in a monogomous one.
As I intimated, being in a monogomous relationship or even marriage, does not guarantee that all concerned make the same investment or place the same value on said relationship(s) any more or less than a polyamourous one...and the same must surely hold true the other way around.
It is not the nature of the form or number of relationships that determines a person's acceptance of lower standards, but their own personality/nature
>Perhaps you love seeing person X because of their sparkling wit. You might not want to live with them or raise children with them because your financial and emotional sides don't mesh so well but that is less of a concern because you're not asking for them to provide you with everything you want in a relationship.
I believe that is what is known as friendship, no?
>Often that's where [monogamous] relationships fail.
Yep...I agree with you on that one...but then I'm a bit of an expert on that one
Re: Part I
From:Re: Part I
From:Re: Part I
From:Re: Part I
From:Re: Part I
From:Re: Part I
From:Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 05:20 am (UTC)Moreover I think you need to eamine your concept of just what a community is a little more closely...Just because, in the relatively recent past, a community was defined by the inability of its members to leave the area that doesn't mean that it was a tight-knit community...There have always been those on the outside (those powerful enough to flaunt the rules...those ostracised for one reason or another...itinerants)...People have always had trouble settling/fitting in
Communities as we know them are an artificial construct imposed upon us by those with wealth/power...Previously, Volkerwanderung was the norm...a sort of bi-directional, socio-chemical reaction, if you will...all we are seeing now is a return to our natural behaviour pattern...a return to nomadism.
Anarchy is not a form of government/social policy/philosophy/political-cause...it is a description of the way things work...The problem with anarchy is not (as most people seem to think) that chaos will arise, but that anarchy leads to what we have now...no-one is in charge of things any more than they ever were...the World consists of individuals doing their own thing...and, like Ghengis Khan, some people get to impose their will and make things happen by virtue of personalinfluence/power more than others...from parents...to friends...to witch doctors...to community leaders...to state leaders...to directors of national companies...to CEOs of multinationl corporations...to the media
If anything, the preponderance now of global communication is simply levelling out the playing-field...oncemore you and I can become pundits/personalities with undue influence, as much as the next person..just look at the principality of Beckhamania...In fact government/trial by media (of which Kilroy is a perfect example) is almost the norm now...You wanna know what most people think, watch TV...watch Eastenders, etc. ... it defines people's concepts of what the issues are...what normality/reality is
More people need to watch the original pilot of Max Headroom and read Ben Elton's Stark if they really wanna understand how the World works...Watching series five of The X Files wouldn't hurt either.
The telephone/Internet=teleportation already ... Work/trade...the stock exchange...globalisation...the breaking down of communit,y as you would appear to have it...has been occuring since whenever...Cheap labour was imported from the slave trade...then it became incentives to imigration...now your telephone call from the UK is routed to a call-centre India...the effects are identical
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 06:33 am (UTC)Sure, travel allows people to move, but I was thinking about them being able to move more often (thus reducing the need for responsibility by lessening the effect of their actions), rather than just once and becoming part of the local community there by paying rates, learning the language etc.
Imagine the impact on language that teleportation would have! Smaller countries and languages are already dying out (Gaelic anyone?), cultures are being forced to either adopt (usually with the difficulty that entails) more modern values or fencepost themselves off to keep their culture intact.
My post here is on the basis that I believe humans need interaction to survive and prosper. It is of course in their very natures to interact so they can find suitable mates to further their genes for example [that kind of brings up the question of the darwinian value of gay relationships - I would argue that people still persue heterosexual relationships where children are not ever going to be a factor]. The communities that existed before there was available transport or communication were forced into taking responsibility for their actions, which in turn formed a community to whom that responsibility was due.
Of course there are going to be exceptions. There have been in the past, there will be in the future, but I do believe the breakdown of the social structure known as community will eventually lead to some vast cultural change (for better or worse).
I don't know if I agree with your idea that communities are artificial constructs imposed by those with wealth/power. I would more readily agree that communities used to be formed by people who lacked the wealth/power to afford transport or communications (communications are only any use if it's available to a significant proportion of people).
Perhaps the nomadic thing has always been and will always be a part of the human condition. I just feel that in recent times it has been easier and is slowly bringing about changes to society.
One thing I do find difficult to swallow is that although you may be correct, that mass media and globalisation and communication allow people to get a better idea of what is 'normal' - but whose ideas are those anyway? We are stifling the diversity that not being so in touch with the world and it's opinions afforded us. Just because something is different doesn't mean it's bad. Killing off diversity is the one thing that keeps us alive and prospering.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 07:54 am (UTC)Were the lords of the manor or monarchs ever more responsible because they belonged to a community?...Does the local squire act any more responsibly?...the local Rotarians/Mason?...the local merchants?...publicans?...parents?...children?
Or do people just behave as they will until someone/something else stops them?
I think you'll find that it is outside pressure that makes people act within certain confines rather than any sense of community...and even then they bend the boundries of what they are 'not allowed to do' as far as they can.
And I don't see how more travel lessens anyone's sense of responsibility...I think I see what you're driving at and I wouldn't disagree necessarily, but at the same time I would point out that as someone who has done alot of travelling in their life, speaking from experience, people who have no sense of responsibility exist everywhere...and are mostly to be found in their local community rather than far-flung...those of who travel the World and/or live in other countries ...for any serious length of time/with any real frequency...by choice tend to be in the minority...so the majority of irresponsible people are being irresposible on their own doorsteps...
So, I don't think the availability, or lack thereof, is the deciding factor with regard to the whole issue of social responsibility..a contributory one, yes, but not as significant as you seem to think
>but I do believe the breakdown of the social structure known as community will eventually lead to some vast cultural change (for better or worse).
I think that's simply a truism
>I would more readily agree that communities used to be formed by people who lacked the wealth/power to afford transport or communications
There is a greater degree of freedom now, yes, but nevetheless many people in the World still cannot afford to leave their own backyard...remember that the World does not simply consist of the affluent West plus a few others...go to India and see the caste system in action...go to Africa and see how many people have the same freedoms we do...Check out the deathcamps in China...
Even here in the West there are still too may people struggling to make endsmeet...look at the housing crisis in this country for instance...ever fewer people can afford to get on even the lowest rung of the housing market...or if they do it's somewhere where there is no work and they have to travel long distances to ensure the employment that will enable them to spend almost their entire day either at work or travelling to and from it...which takes a hefty cutout of their budget, further reducing their quality of life options...
And it's not becaue they would choose that way if they had an option..but because a much smaller minority have the power to maintain a system that benefits them
How free is that?
>One thing I do find difficult to swallow is that although you may be correct, that mass media and globalisation and communication allow people to get a better idea of what is 'normal'
I think you've misunderstood me here..my apolgies for being unclear...What I meant was nopt that these things enable one to understand what is normal...but that they actually define what is normal in the minds of most people - Television. Drug of the nation
I understand your concerns about the homogonisation of humanity in the modern World, but surely freedom to travle is what has made (this country's inparticular) our culture so diverse and enriched...What is the point of worring about the lack of diversity if, in order to ensure diversity, you have to prevent any contact between the different groups?
All very interesting from God's point of view (a SimLife fanatic if ever there wasone), but pretty limiting for the rest of us, I think you;ll agree...
Don't lose sight of realityin your concern about the abstract...yes diversity springs from the well of unique groups of individuals with their own gene/meme pools ... but it equally springs from the fountain of interaction and clashes as groups encounter each other and new environments...no challenges means no evolution means extinction
Re: Part II
From:Re: Part II
From:Re: Part II
From:Re: Part II
From:Part III
Date: 2003-07-11 05:21 am (UTC)War is ever more technological...as is terrorism...(9/11 showed that)...and with instantaneous travel, why bother the old way?...if you want to make yourself effective as a terrorist you have to be fast and furious...get attention from as much of the World as you can as fast as you can..hence the coded warnings sent to the media/authorities...terrorism is not about the act itself, but the threat of the act...Like any other form of war, it's as much of a media-circus as anything else...you don't need to do anything...just scare people into acting upon the threat...
This was always the way...from the days when the attackers would let one or two get away to spread the word (thus ensuring terror)...to dropping pamphlets...to radio propaganda broadcasts...to TV
In a world with teleportation no-one is gonna have an impact unless they use the new technology themselves...destroy a few booths...kill a few people...and then they become more tracable...or if not them then their points of entry into the system are more tracable...
Furthermore, such a system presupposes the kinds of technology that I imagine would allow every person/animal/object to be scanned and decoded in software first...thus enabling the authorities to determine whether the transported item should be reconstituted locally first...
Following on from that, it's the perfect form of social control: In a world with teleportation all other forms of transport/communication would disappear, or become very limited...trade/industry/commerce would have no need of anything else...and who would talk over the phone, when they could just teleport in person?
So travel/communication opportunities would be even more limited: No you can't go on holiday...you're on the dole and your travle rights have been recinded...If you were a known/suspected subversive you'd never travel anywhere for fear they'd never decode/reconstitute you...You can't plan subversive activities because other forms of communication are redundant and, therefore, non-existant.
The perfect form of travel?...God, I'd love it!...but for some the journey is half, if not more, of the fun...and. bearing in mind what I said about it becoming the perfect form of social control, would you really want it?
What IS your local community anyway?...Globalisation/etc has always been an issue, as discussed already...and people interact elsewhere anyway, we don't sit at home/in our local communities...We watch TV, use the phone/Internet...We get in our cars/trains/boats/planes and go to the pub we really like...go clubs/cinemas/theatres/circuses/whatever with people whose tastes in clothing/music/whatever are similar to ours...We've always formed communties that exist beyond the bounds of our physical environment with people with whomwe have more in common thanthe people who live next door...The advent of the postal service saw to that...the only difference now is that we can interact more immediately with these people...but the phenomenon is no different.
Why is single-parenting irresponsible?...Furthermore, in the past, it may have been frowned upon, but it hapened all the same...possibly more than now due the greater liklihood of one or both parents dying at a younger age than today.
Anyway...as I said...just some thoughts.
Re: Part III
Date: 2003-07-11 06:48 am (UTC)Also, you're assuming here that governments would have controls over teleportation. How much control do they have over the internet? I would argue that it is similar. I'm only getting into the theories of what free (in all senses of the word) teleportation would have on society rather than the practicalities that might go with it. It's impractical to really theorise about the practicalities at the moment as we have no way of knowing how it would be performed. What if it were simply a controllable rip/fold in the space/time continuum such that no deconstruction/reconstruction needed to take place? What if it left no trace and gave no indications of it's formation in the first place?
Single parenting is not irresponsible, but on the part of the parent who leaves the relationship it is them shirking their responsibilities towards the child. Even the law acknowledges this in that CSA payments are made by the errant partner to single parents who were legally married.
Hope my responses help to clarify your thoughts. It's been interesting, I'm glad I provoked such a response. :)
Re: Part III
Date: 2003-07-11 08:08 am (UTC)Why bother?...just send the bomb!
>I would argue that it is similar
You're probaly largely right here, but what have governments really got to do with the way the World runs now...or even before?...They're really just lobby groups and apologists for powerful individuals/groups...The civil service are who really run the country...and they are made up of the same people, from the same families/backgrounds who went to the same schools/universities..whose parents/children/friends are directors of this company or that
And big business does not need an uncontrolledmedium whereby those opposed to their interests can wreak havoc upon them...they'll impose their own safeguards (legal or otherwise), believe me.
>What if it were simply a controllable rip/fold in the space/time continuum such that no deconstruction/reconstruction needed to take place? What if it left no trace and gave no indications of it's formation in the first place?
Very interesting concept...but lookinto the latest rsearch into quantum entanglement..there are some huge implications for the measurability of the behaviour of particles across the Universe...and our ability to influence them.
>on the part of the parent who leaves the relationship it is them shirking their responsibilities towards the child
Is it?..What if they do not want their child to grow up in an environment that is damaging to their chances of forming healthy relationships in the future and for the good of the child the parents go seperate ways?
What about those who plan single-parenthood?...Aren't they even more irresponsible by your standards?
>Even the law acknowledges this in that CSA payments are made by the errant partner to single parents who were legally married.
Nah, it's government shirking their responsibility to stop wasting our tax money on WMDs we don't need and actually do what we elected and pay them to do: run things for our benefit!
Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 06:21 am (UTC)If people can make a multi-partner family work, then all credit to them, it's hard enough for two people to do it, three or more need to be very in sync with each other. That's the fundamental flaw with all relationships, polyamorous or monogamous - personalities clash, and to make a successful long-term commitment of any kind, you need to find sympathetic and compatible people. Mathematically (or whatever), that will be simpler if you're only looking for one person that 'fits' with you. I'm sure there are ostensibly-monogamous-but-internally-polyamorous relationships that could easily accommodate a third person, if that person fitted well with the two existing personalities, but lots of people give up at two for practical reasons. And that's also part of why we have so many single parents and Bridget-Jones-Singleton households, because lots of people can't or won't (or shouldn't) find a second person they can live with, let alone a third. Responsibility is part of it, there are a lot of people who run away from responsibility where previously they might have felt pressured into staying, but equally there are numbers of people choosing to take responsibility for themselves and themselves alone, and living like this deliberately. Can we blast one section for being irresponsible and another for taking responsibility beyond what we (society) expect them to? Hmmm. No.
Gosh, this is rather long for a comment. Didn't mean to get this thoughtful on a Friday afternoon!
no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 07:17 am (UTC)I didn't know that the "forsaking all others" part had been taken out of standard vows - wow, progression. I'm impressed. I think.
I think the main point of that part of my post was to do with people not even realising it's an option. Also, that polyamoury is not just one different relationship configuration, but an umbrella term for just about every relationship style that is not monogamy (eg, vee, triad - which is what you refer to, quad, line, etc. etc.)
I should also refer you to my replies to
no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 08:27 am (UTC)Surely the one implies the other...we have made a commitment to be faithful to one another so we trust each other to hold up our ends of that agreement...
The same must hold true of polyamourous relationships...or you don't have a relationship in the first place...just because you and I are both seeing more than one person doesn't mean that
a) we don't trust each other
b) don't expect each other to be honest
c) expect to be sidlined/ignored/given less attention than what we are due
>In addition there will be other problems in polyamorous relationships that don't exist in monogamous relationships.
Yeah...I saw a long documentary once interviewing Mormon families in which polyamoury/polygamy was practised (albeit without a marriage contract)...and boy were all the guys pale/tired/washed/out/miserable!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I am seriously confused
From:Re: I am seriously confused
From:Re: I am seriously confused
From:Re: I am seriously confused
From:no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 06:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 07:25 am (UTC)I definitely like the idea of a community where responsibility for most things are shared. It could make for some really interesting and worthwhile interactions, and give people exposure to a broad set of experiences. If not done carefully this could lead to isolation from the rest of society which would be achieving exactly the opposite of what it was intended for.
People do tend to be obsessed with privacy. I have my own unique views on secrecy and the disservice it does to everyone. In my opinion, secrecy achieves nothing but misery and promotes inequality and mistrust. Of course there are things that are not important to share but I disagree with those who believe in secrets.
Now, as for not doing something you're ashamed of, that is a whole different kettle of fish. The problem is why are you ashamed of it? Is it bringing harm, in any sense, to others? If not why should you be ashamed of it? Who told you you should be ashamed of it? Society promotes this sort of illogical shame. It's gone as far as political correctness and the nanny state, other recent rants of mine.
Glad to have made you stop and think. :)
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 07:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 08:00 am (UTC)I'd certainly say though that if she betrayed my trust then I would have little respect for her.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Quite!
From:(no subject)
From:Re: I wonder if soundproof glass is too much for a museum to stretch to?
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-07-14 01:44 pm (UTC)You had better swallow your pride (if you have any) and take that back. Right now.
Don't you ever refer to my sister that way again. How dare you, when you don't even know her???
no subject
Date: 2003-07-11 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-14 03:39 am (UTC)It avoids all the problems and is more fun than the alternative which is not to love anyone.
I should be on daytime TV. I want my own talk show where everyone gets hugs and is nice to each other.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-14 02:52 pm (UTC)Quick...who wants barbecued hippy!?
;->
Re:
From:(no subject)
From:Re:
From:(no subject)
From:Ack! No!
From:The clod and the pebble
Date: 2003-07-26 11:14 pm (UTC)Such it is tonight.
Reading one particular poem though reminded me of this post, so I thought I would share it with you. It is by William Blake and it is called "The clod and the pebble":
It seems to me, and I know this isn't the classical interpretation of the poem, that those who consider monogamy the only option tend toward the pebbles view of love, while those who profess to polyamoury as being valid would tend toward the clods view. The classic interpretation of this poem is that the clod is innocent and naive, that the youngsters opinion of love has yet to be tempered by age and wisdom. The classic interpretation is that somehow the opinion of the pebble, worn by years of weathering, is more valid and that we are meant to see this by the end of the poem. What I see though is that if we aspire to the pebbles view of love, that is all we will find, if we aspire to the clods view then maybe, just maybe, we will find it.