Worldview Discussion - Part 2

[2PhiloVoid]

Also, the decline of the nuclear family is the direct result of a greater degree of economic independence and basic human rights for women. As sad as it is that society as a whole has not yet replaced the dysfunctional mess of patriarchal monogamy with something new, the death of a system that restricted half of the population to a very narrow role and thrived only by oppressing them is good news.
I hope I live to see society finally get rid of the myth that this monstrous relationship model is somehow the gold standard, even though costly counselors and a whole genre of advice books exists solely to keep it barely functional by artificial means.

....wh-wh-wh-WHAT??!! We need to replace "patriarchical monogomy"? And here I thought just mitigating patriarchy and extolling the value of egalitarianism between both men and women would be enough, particularly if we do it a hermeneutically sound, biblical kind of way. My bad! What was I think'n!

(.........sorry, Jane. I just had to throw my two-cents into the ante!)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

....wh-wh-wh-WHAT??!! We need to replace "patriarchical monogomy"? And here I thought just mitigating patriarchy and extolling the value of egalitarianism between both men and women would be enough, particularly if we do it a hermeneutically sound, biblical kind of way. My bad! What was I think'n!

(.........sorry, Jane. I just had to throw my two-cents into the ante!)

Western culture has tried to divorce monogamy from its rather distasteful roots for roughly a century now, and the results are... well, not promising.
I'm all for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but the whole idea of a kind of ownership-relationship hinges upon the very demons they tried to exorcise to begin with. When even desire for another person assumes the guise of betrayal because of the way relationships are conceived, and people cannot form even closer bonds to others because they are "taken" (like a seat or a car), things are heading in a *very* unhealthy direction.
Serial monogamy is just as miserable, especially when under the umbrella of an ideal that promises One True Love: because it means that for the new relationship to start, the old one has to be irrevocably cut off and denied as a "wrong" choice. There are plenty of people who celebrate their third or fourth marriage, each time believing that THIS time, they've got it "right". Poor sods.

On the other hand, I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all relationship model. *Some* people are perfectly happy without any romantic or sexual contacts in their life. *Some* people fall in love once and stay together for the rest of their lives. *Some* grow apart every couple of years, starting new relationships and abandoning old ones. And *some* take totally different routes.
All of that can be valid, provided that it does not involve violations of trust, boundaries, consent, or agreed-upon rules. And I'd very much prefer it if people consciously and deliberately choose a relationship model than try to live up to one that makes them (and thus every other person involved) miserable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Western culture has tried to divorce monogamy from its rather distasteful roots for roughly a century now, and the results are... well, not promising.

Maybe it's not promising because people are a mess, and always have been. Just a thought.

I'm all for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but the whole idea of a kind of ownership-relationship hinges upon the very demons they tried to exorcise to begin with. When even desire for another person assumes the guise of betrayal because of the way relationships are conceived, and people cannot form even closer bonds to others because they are "taken" (like a seat or a car), things are heading in a *very* unhealthy direction.

I can understand your sense of irritation with this whole thing, but I also think that at least some of the way we each conceptualize the inherent meaning of "relating" to other people is mediated by the ways in which our felt needs grew during our respective social situations when being raised.

Personally, I've never conceptualized my marriage to my wife as being somehow a form of "ownership." My wife is mine, and I am hers, but only in the sense that this means that I expect others to respect my relationship with my wife and not try to horn in on it. Inversely, my wife should be able to assume (and expect) that I won't go seeking companionship of a more intimate sort with any other women. And I think she has the "right" to expect this of me.

Serial monogamy is just as miserable, especially when under the umbrella of an ideal that promises One True Love: because it means that for the new relationship to start, the old one has to be irrevocably cut off and denied as a "wrong" choice. There are plenty of people who celebrate their third or fourth marriage, each time believing that THIS time, they've got it "right". Poor sods.

Yes. Poor Sods.

............whether or not serial monogamy is 'bearable' may depend upon the presence of various socially forming factors in the mind and life of any one individual. To simply say that serial monogamy is miserable seems to only indicate that it may be so for the person so saying that it is .....

On the other hand, I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all relationship model. *Some* people are perfectly happy without any romantic or sexual contacts in their life. *Some* people fall in love once and stay together for the rest of their lives. *Some* grow apart every couple of years, starting new relationships and abandoning old ones. And *some* take totally different routes.

On this particular nuance within the makeup of relational human choices, I think you already know where I stand on this kind of psycho-social subject, that is, if you've read anything from my recent forays into the topics of Raunch Culture and Hugh Hefner's philosophy.

On the one hand, I can definitely say, "Down with Patriarchy!" But on the other, I don't seem to be irritated by the same intuitions that may accompany the act of saying, "Down with Monogomy!" Sure, there's many an attractive woman (and man) in this world, but just recognizing this fact is a very far cry from thinking I've just opened the door to Baskin-Robbins.

All of that can be valid, provided that it does not involve violations of trust, boundaries, consent, or agreed-upon rules. And I'd very much prefer it if people consciously and deliberately choose a relationship model than try to live up to one that makes them (and thus every other person involved) miserable.

I tend to think that the validity of all of this will go quite a bit deeper into the rabbit hole than all of that.

 

[Silmarien]

Western culture has tried to divorce monogamy from its rather distasteful roots for roughly a century now, and the results are... well, not promising.

What distasteful roots? The early Christian focus on the marital relationship as sacramental is actually pretty lovely, and was good for women. Fantastic transformation from the abuses of the Greco-Roman system, though obviously patriarchal thinking won out again in the end. But that's not specifically a problem with monogamy, seeing how awful polygamy is.

I'm all for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but the whole idea of a kind of ownership-relationship hinges upon the very demons they tried to exorcise to begin with. When even desire for another person assumes the guise of betrayal because of the way relationships are conceived, and people cannot form even closer bonds to others because they are "taken" (like a seat or a car), things are heading in a *very* unhealthy direction.
Serial monogamy is just as miserable, especially when under the umbrella of an ideal that promises One True Love: because it means that for the new relationship to start, the old one has to be irrevocably cut off and denied as a "wrong" choice. There are plenty of people who celebrate their third or fourth marriage, each time believing that THIS time, they've got it "right". Poor sods.

On the other hand, I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all relationship model. *Some* people are perfectly happy without any romantic or sexual contacts in their life. *Some* people fall in love once and stay together for the rest of their lives. *Some* grow apart every couple of years, starting new relationships and abandoning old ones. And *some* take totally different routes.
All of that can be valid, provided that it does not involve violations of trust, boundaries, consent, or agreed-upon rules. And I'd very much prefer it if people consciously and deliberately choose a relationship model than try to live up to one that makes them (and thus every other person involved) miserable.

Newer relationship models are no less poisonous than traditional ones, and as far as I'm concerned, may actually be worse. The social pressure to be sexually active is far stronger in the secular world than it appears to be in the traditional world, which really seems to just hurt everyone. There's a greater expectation than ever before that women be sexually available, which completely overturns the idea of sexual liberation and tosses us back in chains, and I pity the men who aren't interested in bowing to sex obsessed secular culture, because their masculinity is on the line. Patriarchy is a bit of a hydra--cut off one head and two more will take its place.

I'm familiar with the polyamorous world, and I think it actually might be healthier than the larger secular scene, since the point really is relationship rather than sex there, but it's not the answer to all our problems. As a lifestyle, it seems to be exponentially more demanding than monogamy, so if a person can't handle the latter in a responsible way, they shouldn't be running to polyamory as the solution. There is no magical pill that is going to make all of our deep societal problems with relationships, gender, and sexuality disappear.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What distasteful roots? The early Christian focus on the marital relationship as sacramental is actually pretty lovely, and was good for women.

Marriage did not start with early Christianity.
It did not even start with the Old Testament's rape laws along the lines of "if you damage the merchandise, you have to buy it", though that's as good of a starting point as any for establishing just how utterly horrid the roots are.
It's a property deal, an arrangements between grooms and the brides' fathers (or brothers if dad has already passed away). And its most central value, the cult of (female) virginity and sexual exclusivity, is nothing short of a disaster.

Personally, I think the Mosuo of China are the only culture that has got it right as a whole culture:
fatherhood is not an overly important concept in their value system. Children are raised by women and their siblings, and women freely maintain relationships that last as long or as short as fate permits. (Anthropologists called them "walking marriages", showing how difficult it is even for academics to think outside the box.)
The Mosuo know the kind of marriage we are familiar with, through contact with neighboring cultures: and they use it to scare their children. "Behave, or we will marry you off like the Chinese do".

Patriarchy is a bit of a hydra--cut off one head and two more will take its place.

Yes. A topless model is no more (but also no less) liberated than a veiled muslim - though both *can* be.

I'm familiar with the polyamorous world, and I think it actually might be healthier than the larger secular scene, since the point really is relationship rather than sex there, but it's not the answer to all our problems. As a lifestyle, it seems to be exponentially more demanding than monogamy, so if a person can't handle the latter in a responsible way, they shouldn't be running to polyamory as the solution. There is no magical pill that is going to make all of our deep societal problems with relationships, gender, and sexuality disappear.

Agreed. A person who struggles with the demands of a monogamous relationship on account of an inability to communicate and respect boundaries would fare HORRIBLY in a polyamorous relationship. Still, the power dynamics there are free of what I'd call the "historical baggage" attached to traditional monogamy. It's much more difficult to let go of established structures if the framework you operate in was basically formed by the very ideology you want to get rid of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Marriage did not start with early Christianity.

Marriage started with Adam & Eve.

One man, one woman, joined together in holy matrimony by God.

 

[Silmarien]

Marriage did not start with early Christianity.
It did not even start with the Old Testament's rape laws along the lines of "if you damage the merchandise, you have to buy it", though that's as good of a starting point as any for establishing just how utterly horrid the roots are.
It's a property deal, an arrangements between grooms and the brides' fathers (or brothers if dad has already passed away). And its most central value, the cult of (female) virginity and sexual exclusivity, is nothing short of a disaster.

Then why did you say that Western society has tried to detach marriage from its roots for only a century? It has been trying for 2000 years, though obviously only with partial success. Marriage's most central value in Christianity is as a sacrament, chock full of religious symbolism. Yes, property concerns and control of sexuality have by no means disappeared, but that hasn't been its central value in the West for millennia.

Personally, I think the Mosuo of China are the only culture that has got it right as a whole culture:
fatherhood is not an overly important concept in their value system. Children are raised by women and their siblings, and women freely maintain relationships that last as long or as short as fate permits. (Anthropologists called them "walking marriages", showing how difficult it is even for academics to think outside the box.)
The Mosuo know the kind of marriage we are familiar with, through contact with neighboring cultures: and they use it to scare their children. "Behave, or we will marry you off like the Chinese do".

I'm familiar with the Mosuo, but I think you'd have to actually go live there for a few years to see whether it really works better or if it comes with its own social issues attached. I'm very suspicious of the idealization of aboriginal societies in general.

Of course, there are also questions concerning just how accurate our perceptions of the Mosuo have been: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aman.12125

I do agree with the notion of children being raised more communally instead of the focus on the single family unit, though. But that only really rules out the modern ideal of monogamy, which isn't very old at all.

Agreed. A person who struggles with the demands of a monogamous relationship on account of an inability to communicate and respect boundaries would fare HORRIBLY in a polyamorous relationship. Still, the power dynamics there are free of what I'd call the "historical baggage" attached to traditional monogamy. It's much more difficult to let go of established structures if the framework you operate in was basically formed by the very ideology you want to get rid of.

But polygamy has always existed also, and has even more historical baggage than traditional monogamy. If we want to distinguish between traditional polygamy and modern polyamory and say that one is poisonous and the other free of historical baggage, then we can do the same thing with traditional monogamy and a modern form of monogamy that is looser with gender roles.

I doubt any of it is utterly free of baggage, of course, but one can get at least as close as the other.