because I am somehow sick of severe depression — javi2541997

I do not trust public administrations of any kind.

Why? Because for them, your problems are not problems, your problems are statistics that they just take into account.

I would never consume any kind of drug (or alcohol) no matter what are the conditions. I prefer to be prone to suicide and be pride of who I am. I know it sounds crazy (I do not care about that either).

I know it makes you suffer a lot and it seems that it destroys you, but I have never reached such a state of peace regardless of that after this condition gave me the tool of not caring, I am somehow grateful for that... I feel almost guilty when I call it an illness.

It's been four years since the last time I had a friend and I don't feel a brutal need for attention, for example, and I know it is because depression makes you feel as if you don't even deserve it. I thought that was not possible since we are "Social animals" but it is what it is, and for that I am truly grateful.

I think it's a more intense life than a normal one. You are more prone to die but at least you experience things that normal people don't.

Now I have it clear. Thanks for your answer.

a stable foundation and variable experiences to maximize brain development. — Possibility

Yes. That is what I was trying to say.

The thing is, is "Free love" a problem when it is practiced massively? Maybe we are creating a sightly pathological/weak community.

and that the nuclear family is one of the most stressful and dysfunctional there is; and at that, it is more often than not a mere pretence. — unenlightened

I wonder what would be the reason for that.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding here.

I not talking about the impossibility of adoption, neither about whether men are supposed to take "Fatherly roles" or "Motherly roles".

This is the main point:

I think it does because for a healthy paternity to exist, there must be strong emotional ties, and for something to be strong, it must be recurrent. Especially talking about social relationships. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Taking into account that:

what I am referring to is the fact that practicing "Free love" (I usually put this term between quotation marks because it has many connotations) is not feasible in a healthy family. Or maybe it is. The latter possibility is why I am writing this... — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

What I exactly mean is: Taking into account the former assumption, the second assumption may be unfeasible.

Why: Because there would not be recurrent father and mother figures (Whether these are implemented by the man or the woman or both).

Certainly. You have heard of adoption ? — unenlightened

No... in fact I have not. :(

Joke.

I am not sure what adoption has to do in this context. I will quote myself:

I think it does because for a healthy paternity to exist, there must be strong emotional ties, and for something to be strong, it must be recurrent. Especially talking about social relationships. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

This is the main point.

Well that is a very intentional affirmation. I don't care. I think the main topic is over now, so, if you want, we can discuss it.

Even those incline to feminist propaganda speeches. — Banno

I think that is a little incompatible for most. Maybe it is actually compatible, but not for unconditional love.

I have met some (young) people who are hostilely rejected because of their opposition to feminism.

This is actually very common in Spain.

I never said otherwise. — I like sushi

With strong I meant recurrent.

Yes. That is true.

I see. Sorry if it sounds reductionist to you but I like sex, that is all I would argue.
With sex there is some possibility for birth... We should accept that if we want to have sex.

If we don't value sex enough, well, that is one's choice.

I have never heard of "Antinatalism" before.

Sometimes I want to die. Maybe it's essentially the same. Joking :)

No that is not a fact, that is a choice. I’m an ardent antinatalist and I think it’s immoral to burden others with the collateral damage of the negatives of life. One they’re born, it’s suffer, comply with the game to survive, deal with negative circumstances or choose the hard act of killing yourself. — schopenhauer1

I will assume you are joking.

but also simultaneously unwilling to make the necessary steps and sacrifices... — SatmBopd

I think it is more that we think we have too many options that happiness does not even come to mind.

The idea of ‘father figure’ and ‘mother figure’ are not natural laws. There are instances in different societies where the biological father does not take on the same role in modern western societies. — I like sushi

Can you attach some of the sources please?

Point being, our personal experience of male and female roles in the societies we are familiar with are not necessarily any better than any other simply because they are more commonly known to us. It could be that they are but I have not seen a reason to suggest anything other than a child being well adjusted enough if they are exposed to stable and loving care (who this comes from is not massively important unless it is viewed as a social taboo). — I like sushi

Yes... I was looking at it with a little bias towards the western model... However I still think that a child would grow "Better" if he engages in strong love relationships from his birth to his maturity.

I was raised (though I am more than willing to question this) basically to see free love as a pretty shallow and unsubstantial substitute for a real relationship. — SatmBopd

The fact that you call the latter the "Real" one, clearly demonstrates it.

Powerful, beautiful things just require hefty sacrifice, (as I see it right now). Maybe this all sounds silly, but I'm making these estimations based on real relationships I've observed having been raised in (though currently rejecting) the (very imperfect) Catholic Church. Some of these relationships continued for over half a century, and only ended because of death. I think that's kind of badass compared to... essentially a less particular form of polygamy. — SatmBopd

I agree with you. I remember having a girlfriend when I was younger that I lasted a long time with. That times were full of missing outs, economic sacrifices... I would not come back but man those were the happiest days I have spent with a woman.

But you see that the time to change has came. Those kind of relationships are not really "Practical" nowadays... People have changed a lot.

There is no problem to adapt, but I however think that this, just maybe, is not a good path for humanity to follow. This could make us weaker individually (although that hypothesis is not the point).

So you will ignore propaganda. But not just any propaganda. The particular kind that you intend to ignore is feminist propaganda. So the point of view matters to you after all. It's not just the means of propagation that will inspire you to ignore a view. It's a specific kind of content. — Cuthbert

The point of view does not matter at all. I specified feminist propaganda because it is the particular kind that may and probably would came to this thread. I tell you what would be nonsense: If I would've wrote: "Any programming speech concerning to Linux propaganda will be ignored". Why would I say that when it does not even have to do with the topic? Maybe I'm against Linux software or something. However I said I will ignore propaganda that may probably (Concerning to what I believe is probable) be made taking advantage of the topic. Does that make sense?

It is just that feminist propaganda bothers me.

"Yeah that is because you SPECIFICALLY do not like feminist propaganda."

I do not like any kind of propaganda. However I am tired of watching feminism everywhere. If you are a feminist and have something to say about this, that is what I was looking for. I was just not looking for someone to take advantage of the topic to do politics. I think that makes sense.

I realise you were not talking about that. However, I was talking about that. It was a new point of view that I was bringing to the discussion. The question was whether Free Love and family life can be compatible. I noted that to make them compatible you could over-ride or ignore the views of other people, as you proposed to do in the OP. It's not any kind of final word on the topic. There are other aspects as well. — Cuthbert

That is okay then. However do you think that human opinion is more important than human behavior when it comes to influencing a child's education?

Yes, but they can and do sometimes come from sources the child has strong emotional ties to - siblings or other relatives/friends. — I like sushi

Don't you think the "Father figure" and the "Mother figure" play both a special role?

I'd rather distinct between propaganda and point of view/belief.

The word "Propaganda" comes from the Latin congregatio de propaganda fide, which means propagation of a belief, and not the belief itself. That is a huge and important difference. I think you know it but you are intentionally omitting it. I am wondering why. :)

I noted that this is exactly the policy required to make the philosophy of Free Love feasible within any family. — Cuthbert

I get your point, but I am not talking about that (Because anything is feasible if the only determinant is other people's opinions. Only thing you have to do is ignore it, as you mentioned. However that is obvious).

What is not obvious for me is what I said to @I like sushi:

I think it does because for a healthy paternity to exist, there must be strong emotional ties, and for something to be strong, it must be recurrent. Especially talking about social relationships. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

How can a healthy family be feasible (regardless of what other people think) taking into account the aforementioned?

(these need not be from the same people). — I like sushi

I think it does because for a healthy paternity to exist, there must be strong emotional ties, and for something to be strong, it must be recurrent. Especially talking about social relationships.



You are spinning around something that is not the point. But for the sake of argument, I did not say I will ignore a point of view. I said I will ignore propaganda. I think I should made that word bold.

suit your own philosophy. — Cuthbert

I am not presenting my philosophy in this threat. I am proposing a discussion.

If it seemed anti-feminism propaganda, that was unintentional.

I won't get off topic again.

Lifelong fidelity to a single partner is not particularly natural or common for humans, we are tribal and promiscuous. But it has been made the ideal and norm, and the price of freedom from that norm is either paid by the adults making provision for the stable support of their children through a network of care, or it is paid by the child through inadequate care. — unenlightened

Are you sure about this?

You have quoted this study in the last post I made: https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/resilience/according-experts/resilience-after-trauma-early-development

And it says:
" ...Although most children will show resilience and the ability to recover relatively quickly after a significant traumatic event, ongoing trauma and cumulative traumatic experiences challenge a young child’s ability to recovery.

...multiple disruptions including frequents moves and changes in caregivers..."

I mean,

a network of care, — unenlightened

Do you believe this is really feasible?

A choice has to be made here, either for the satisfactions of free and open relationships, OR for family. One can't have both at the same time. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. That is my point: People are choosing the former more than before. Should that be considered a problem? I thought it did not, before. But now, thinking it twice, it may cost humans a lot.

You can mix free love and family life very easily if you ignore other people's points of view. — Cuthbert

I never did... I am not talking about what is the influence of other people's opinion in families, what I am referring to is the fact that practicing "Free love" (I usually put this term between quotation marks because it has many connotations) is not feasible in a healthy family. Or maybe it is. The latter possibility is why I am writing this...

If there is one women and two men or two women and one man, no matter. As long as there are examples of loving relationships reflective of the society on ready display to the child everything will be as fine as it could be. — I like sushi

The problem: Father and mother figure. In the first case, which of them both is the father figure for the child? In the second case, which of them both is the mother figure for the child?

Are you capable of saying "Both"?

There are one mother and one father, biologically. Evidently there is not a strong relationship between biological and social truths, at all. However, when we are talking about a child, we are not allowed to talk socially, but biologically, as he/she is not developed enough.

Some children raised that way tend to be extremely docile, or violent, have anger and trust issues, etc.

Here: https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/resilience/according-experts/resilience-after-trauma-early-development

They call it "disruptions including frequents moves and changes in caregivers"

I recognize these as similar problems when I was young, and when I see people who have suffered, really, exactly this, the cause seems obvious to me.

What's against taking drugs? — EugeneW

The idea seems to me like losing my true self in exchange for happiness.

I read somewhere that there are languages which use the same word for "weakness" and "strength." Can't remember the source or which languages. It makes sense to me that our weaknesses are also our strengths. — T Clark

There must be a difference between the two, if not it would be difficult to communicate. However, very interestingly, there is no way of reinforcement if you don't destroy your weaknesses "Subtly enough" to give chance for yourself to repair them, as in muscle growth. If it's too much you would not the weakness but the thing itself. That may be related to depression as described by @Joshs.

I think you are right. That changes the way I think about it.
Now I understand it's not an adequacy to something but the thing itself. That in fact really makes sense.

However I still experience that my overall conditions are better than before, when I was not "Injured."

For instance , withdrawing from social situations is an adaptation that protects one from being exposed to painful reminders of one’s loss of competence, and situations which may even deepen the feelings of worthlessness. — Joshs

I agree with you mainly in this. I'm completely aware that I stand apart from people because I don't like to deal with the failure that results from my lack of social abilities (And I also don't like when I see someone likes me in any way, it makes me feel that they are being somewhat hypocritical.) But as it doesn't cause me much pain I don't really see the point in solving it, honestly.

You just said things that, frequently, when I say them to other people (Mostly trying to help), people get pushed away from me. That is a little hilarious.

Do you think something like 'that's just who I am and who I choose to be and I am perfectly happy with the advantages of being a more 'solitary' person,' or 'I accept these as shortfalls and I have tried to combat this but I have been unable to, I would like to be less solitary,' or 'I suffer from SAD, social anxiety disorder' Do you think that named medically recognised conditions such as SAD help or do you think they are medically contrived for the sake of political correctness? — universeness

Well... I have always refused any kind of drugs and I stand on my position. I prefer this to kill me rather than alter my brain.

I understand the point of your question. I know social distance usually causes a lot of pain, and it is actually a little uncomfortable, but it's not that I'm happy with it, which I'm not, but rather that it doesn't cause me enough pain for me to pay attention and time to seek a solution. I honestly was not looking for motivation in this aspect. I just commented it because I think it is important to know whether a person usually talks to other people or not when you are talking to them, as things said by the latter would be misunderstood sometimes due to that same lack of interaction. In that sense I don't have many problems...

Why so many people are depressed? Sign of the times. — EugeneW

I believe there are much chance for instant pleasure, which often doesn't last much. There are many short term solutions to every problem that only thing you can do is forget about the laborious ones.
This have lead people to forget about long term well-being.

That also affects one's ability to grow correctly a family or children, or even to take care about oneself.

This surely is one of the things that may have affected me personally.

symptoms are very often adaptations to pathogens — unenlightened

This is a good analogy. But it is often confusing to relate physical and psychological phenomena as the "Wounds" that one could suffer mentally don't heal automatically but we have to; first be willing to; and second, knowing what to do in certain situations. That without taking into account that every course of action requires opportunity and that certainly is not always present.

Why not? — EugeneW

Thank you for asking. I thought that would be misunderstood.
I don't talk to other people because I'm a very solitaire person. This can be but I think is not the reason for my depression, although may have worsen my ability to understand it. I'm just not good at making friends in the real, "Physical" world. And as I don't usually do, I also lack most of the "Social abilities", so to speak. However that is not important to me.

I had a fair share of all and they are just reactions of the lightning-shaped chaotic brain to the linear environment it's pushed in. — EugeneW

Well I think I'm not far from truth. That is what I believed.

"Well, if I kill myself, something really cool will happen a few days later like aliens will visit us or something and I will f****** MISS IT" — universeness

What a survival instinct.

I honestly have very recurrent suicidal thoughts sometimes but thinking about missing out things would just produce me stress because I will certainly die at some time.

When I think about that, I just remember the things I like about being alive, like being able to drink water and pet dogs. I also have very ambitious vices as everyone else, but I would not change the first two for anything.