Note: Any feminist propaganda speech will be ignored at least by me. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
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
You can mix free love and family life very easily if you ignore other people's points of view. — Cuthbert
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
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
a network of care, — unenlightened
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? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
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. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
I never did... — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
"Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Not trying to be mean. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
(these need not be from the same people). — I like sushi
suit your own philosophy. — Cuthbert
I am not presenting my philosophy in this threa[d]. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
"Free love" philosophy in place, which I share — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
If it seemed anti-feminism propaganda, that was unintentional — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
I noted that this is exactly the policy required to make the philosophy of Free Love feasible within any family. — Cuthbert
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
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
I'd rather distinct between propaganda and point of view/belief. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
I think you know it but you are intentionally omitting it. I am wondering why. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
I get your point, but I am not talking about that — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
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
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
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
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
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
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
We need other people to procreate. That is a fact — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
But you see that the time to change has came. Those kind of relationships are not really "Practical" nowadays... People have changed a lot. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
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
but also simultaneously unwilling to make the necessary steps and sacrifices... — SatmBopd
I will assume you are joking. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
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. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
However I still think that a child would grow "Better" if he engages in strong love relationships from his birth to his maturity. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
You can kiss the family goodbye. Free love denies attachment, commitment, and deep affection. "Free love" is an oxymoron -- no one can love you if the goal is to go around fuck one another with no restraint. Even swans stay with their partners for life! Oh and yeah, they're beautiful too.So, my question is, how is (real, healthy, affectionate) family feasible with this "Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.