Free and open relationships are a fine thing if all the relevant parties agree that it is a fine thing; If they do not, then trouble will be the result.

Family (parents and children) demands a level of commitment that rules out the kind of freedom that open relationships imply. Raising children is best done when there are two adults committed to the child's best possible outcomes, who share the tasks of child rearing, and who both contribute to the emotional, intellectual, and material well being of the child. [Can one person successfully raise a child? It isn't optimal, but it has been done. Still, a responsible adult should not opt for single parenthood, however.

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.

Note: Any feminist propaganda speech will be ignored at least by me. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

That could be the answer in this thread and also in life. You can mix free love and family life very easily if you ignore other people's points of view. Blithe indifference is the way forward. It comes at a cost - but not to the ones doing the ignoring.

The modern concept of a ‘family unit’ is a little stagnant due to tradition.

In reality - there are many examples - a ‘healthy family’ requires children to have strong roel models. Both men and women have different things to offer and from person to person there are obviously differences too.

I think, in general, that a good social environment is needed. A balance of different ages, sexes and attitudes reflective of the society lived in is also a damn good idea.

‘Free love’ (assuming you mean people sleeping around without any problems) has next to nothing to do with how children are raised. 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.

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.

It takes a village to raise a child. (African proverb).

Freedom does not come cheap. Children need stable loving care for a long time, and the social arrangements around sexual relations, property, and so on are what have in the past provided at least the stability. The industrial revolution, welfare state, and consumer society, have reduced the family to its current nuclear state. Formerly, families were extended through all the generations and across them so as to provide that stability when life even for adults was precarious; aunts or grandmothers might take over from mothers, and so on.

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.

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?

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

Doesn’t really matter as long as there is a stable relationship to observe and a male and female role model around. Point being about the child being exposed to people providing parental guidance and people in stable loving relationships (these need not be from the same people).

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 don’t understand what this means/refers to?

I never did... — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

You did propose to ignore a point of view with which you disagree. I wrote that this could be an effective strategy if you want to get a .....

"Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

The strategy would be this: ignore other people's views if they don't suit your own philosophy.

You already saw the connection for yourself:

Not trying to be mean. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

If you did not already get the point then you would not be worried about looking mean.

(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.

I am not presenting my philosophy in this threa[d]. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

"Free love" philosophy in place, which I share — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I am wondering why you say you share a philosophy and then say that the philosophy you share is not your philosophy.

If it seemed anti-feminism propaganda, that was unintentional — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

It seemed like an announcement of a policy to ignore views that you disagree with. I noted that this is exactly the policy required to make the philosophy of Free Love feasible within any family. A person can just override other people's points of view. It's an effective policy and even more so if they can pass it off as just a joke and not quite relevant to the matter in hand and somewhat off topic.

One person's propaganda is another person's sincerely held belief. Calling a view 'propaganda' is not to describe the view, it is to dismiss it.

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

There are also societies where the role of ‘father’ is quite different to what we are used to where such a role is divided between other relatives in the family.

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?

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?

perhaps you are defining ‘healthy family’ in a way that suggests any other option is ‘unhealthy’.

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.

This is not my opinion (not just something I think), it is something I know from reading anthropological sources.

In some Chinese cultures brothers share a wife due to the number of women in their community. It works because they share common genetic makeup so are willing to protect the genes.

In other instances the ‘father’ (biological father) has little to nothing to do with their children until they reach a certain age. In those cases the brother of the mother generally takes in the role of ‘father’ in how we would imagine it.

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 think this is an interesting issue. Currently you seem to have given it a little more thought than me.

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. I do not believe that we can truly be attracted to only one person and nobody else, that yes, we could find ourselves happy with any number of people. But in order to experience the full extent of that happiness, complete devotion needs to be extended to one person... at least that's how I currently see it.

Idk if this makes sense, but if you think of it like a videogame, with branching character upgrade trees, yes, you could, in theory, fully upgrade your character along any of the upgrade paths, but you only ever will do so if you stick to one for the majority of the game.

I think all kinds of love, even if they are ultimately worth it, require (probably a substantial) sacrifice. I do agree that telling your significant other that you can only and will only ever desire to be with them is (essentially) a lie... but what if you just didn't build the relationship on this lie? What if instead of that, you told them, look: I can, and could, and would pretty much totally like to extend my love to other people (instead/ and or as well) who reflect other aspects of myself or I'm attracted to in different ways, yadda yadda yadda, but I am willing to make such a substantial investment into our relationship, that I will forgo all the joy and happiness associated with those other people for your sake.

Maybe that's simply too much of a sacrifice for some people, but if you don't make it, I just don't see how you would come close to matching the feeling of trust that would result, if both parties (sincerely) agreed to something like that. Like, why would anyone feel any level of complete trust in an open relationship, if everybody knew they could just run into someone else's arms (when, not if) something goes wrong?

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.

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

I think you know it but you are intentionally omitting it. I am wondering why. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I do indeed know it and address it above.

I get your point, but I am not talking about that — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

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.

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?

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).

We need other people to procreate. That is a fact — 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.

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

I guess you're right about that... it might be possible that many people (maybe not everyone) are genuinely desirous of the more sincere kind of relationship, but also simultaneously unwilling to make the necessary steps and sacrifices... maybe simply because it's less socially acceptable (depending on your circle).

Oh well.

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.

I will assume you are joking. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Absolutely not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

Antinatalism is a thing and "We need people to procreate" is just false even on the face of it.

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 :)

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

That possibility can be of course minimized to a very high degree. For humans, it is not if --> then. Obviously we have birth control methods.

Yes. That is true.

However I still think that a child would grow "Better" if he engages in strong love relationships from his birth to his maturity. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I never said otherwise.

I never said otherwise. — I like sushi

With strong I meant recurrent.

And I STILL never said otherwise.

So, my question is, how is (real, healthy, affectionate) family feasible with this "Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — 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.