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. — L'éléphant

:lol:

I have failed my master. :cool:

I have failed my master. :cool: — Agent Smith

I am your master.

It takes a village to raise a child. — unenlightened

Also,



A child will thrive if they arrive in a supportive and loving world, regardless of the gender or sexual proclivities of those doing the supporting and loving.

Even those incline to feminist propaganda speeches.

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.

So now you do wish to waste time on feminist propaganda? Make up your mind.

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.

Do you believe this is really feasible? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Certainly. You have heard of adoption ?

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.

Ah I see. But you don't see the relevance of adoption?

It's evidence that emotional ties result from commitment, not the other way round. In your thought you treat biological paternity as necessarily connected with emotional ties; I have to tell you that there can be either one without the other, and quite commonly.

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

Being the father in a very egalitarian realtionship(my wife make twice the money I do) living in a academical neighborhood with strong progressive leanings you bet your azz they play special roles. Maybe more obvious in a equal right environment as the Scandinavia where I live. Where women chose freely. Famously it is here that women to the highest degree chose traditional women jobs, and I think women here also chose the Mother role with more emphasis. Sure, we guys here take a big part in household chores, and take paternal leave after the maternal leave period when a new child is born. But MAN are women motherly here. Especially academic women with progressive values. The world should be egalitarian but bloody well not my babies…

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).

I just, lately, thought about it harder than usual, and then the question came to light: What about families?

Maybe I am not personally the kind of person that is able to form a family and that is okay; but most people... That should be somehow alarming. Why? Because think about it... Think about a family in which they are "Free" to give love (real, familiar love) to whoever they eventually want. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I was obviously the kind of person, do now have two kids in their tweens, so I can look back at familyhood. And “family” is kind of not a very definite concept.

Growing up in a family with a mum strong in maths and a dad with managerial talents, in my 60’s childhood, the arrival of the firstborn meant mummy quit job until youngest child 10-ish. Dd was the patriarch and mum was the not-so-happy-to-be-at-home submissive. She died 2 ys ago and I do not visit her grave. When my kid brother turned up me 4yo I made mince meat of him, everybody unhappy.

In the 90’s when we started production of offspring the choices were much more free. And kindergarten here normally starts from 1,5 yo, sometimes earlier. So when our sons little sister popped into his life he was like - cool! He had been around kids half his life, taking and giving. And involved her in all kinds of adventures. I have enjoyed family life immensely, in the version Inhad the privilege to be a father in, and the other involved parts seem to agree.

"Free love" ) is not feasible in a healthy family. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Look, there is a long tradition of having a wife and a mistress. Lets not pretend that before the 60's everyone was life-long monogamous. What happens is feasible. If you define a healthy family as a monogamous relationship, then there are rather few healthy families now or in history. and there is really nothing much else to say. But actually, look at a bit of anthropology and you will see that the possible families, and relationships and arrangements for the care of children are legion, 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.

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.

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

Perhaps a healthy and affectionate family with a ‘free love’ philosophy is theoretically possible, but it’s by no means easy to structure with the aim of prioritising the needs of the child. A ‘free love’ philosophy is very much a selfish attitude in most cases, which is incompatible with the concept of ‘family’.

The problem I see with ‘free love’ is the freedom to withdraw or deny love - ‘love’ being an actualising perception of value, potential and significance in another. Ideas such as the importance of both a mother and father figure, and ‘it takes a village to raise a child’, stem from the allostasis of parenting a human being: providing that ideal balance between a stable foundation and variable experiences to maximise brain development.

That’s not to say that ‘free love’ can’t be framed as a broader, more inclusive and variable attitude towards the notion of ‘family’, but this comes at the cost of stability. You would need to demonstrate a stable foundation of love for the child in some other way. This challenge may also be encountered to some extent if a parent dies, is incapacitated or disfigured, during a divorce, adoption, fostering, etc.

A point I want to make is that a traditional nuclear family in no way guarantees the kind of balance between a stable foundation of actualising love and variable informative experiences that a child needs to thrive. It’s arguably more likely to occur naturally (efficiently) in this format, but I think it’s more important that the ‘family’ understands their responsibility of actualising love towards the child permanently precludes a certain degree of freedom, which is to be dictated by the child’s needs.

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.

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

As I said, the problem with ‘free love’ is the freedom to withdraw or deny love without compunction, and the moral justification to then withdraw or deny love in response. A focus only on ‘free love’, without the motivation to develop foundations as well as an ongoing dialectic, will always be a weak community. It’s only one third of the picture.

Now I have it clear. Thanks for your answer.