Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:03 pm
IJ
Don't know that I could consider "passionless" as also being "loving and wonderful."
Something about those 2 distinctions seems contridictory at a fundamental/basic level.
Presuming that to actually be the case I would agree.
In terms of "opinion."
"read the book"
Seems like an interesting thesis. But I know for a fact that one can make anything seem rational. And their are often multiple ways to spin data.
The fact remains that pair bonding is the general rule. "Other" forms tend not to be widespread or embraced by many.......as I mentioned even in nations that allow multiple spouses....people that actually have multiple spouses are often in the great minority.
"You can love multiple kids"
Perhaps because one often raises children from infancy.........it would seem resonable that if you suddenly found out that you had a child you didn't know about for say 20 years, that you would feel less of a bond as to that of child you raised from a newborn.
"Breastfeeding non-biological shared kids"
Again, infants for which humans seem hardwired (in general) to bond with. How those children feel about those folks when they grow up is an open question. As if the breast feeders feelings about all the childern they nursed.
A "wet nurse" was (and is, as as far as I know) a common enough person. Hard to think that a wet nurse feels that all the kids she nursed are just like her own children.
There are always "what if's" and they can be delt with on a case by case.
"There is definitely something to be said about the obvious thing that happens when a couple permits each other to outside relationships."
A-Not sure there is enough hard data on how many people "permit" such things.
B-My guess is that what qualifies as "permission" might be very different depending on just whom you ask.
"Honest multiple fidelity"
I'd say that is false choice in that I don't agree that such a thing is really possible.
Even when the sun is shining and things are looking good there are only so many hours in the day and only so much time.
Consider, between work, possible children, friends, martial arts training, family obligations, etc.......exactly how much time do you think you have for more than one person?
I don't think that many people would have the time or the energy to provide "fidelity" to more than one person.........someone is going to be left out.
And that is when things are going well........a crisis with a single significant other can be draining.......what happens if there is crisis with 2 or 3 people at once?
Just not convienced that a person can provide true "honest" commitment to multiple people. I think someone is always going to lose out.
A buddy of mine, back in his younger days, often used to "juggle" 2-3 girls at once. Never lied to anyone, was always very open that he was seeing other people.
3 things are worth mentioning.
1-None of the girls would tolerated it for long. None of them.
2-He was "exhausted" much of the time because of the various demands on his time, energy---physical, emotional, mental etc.
He'd go over and help one paint a room, then help another shop, then meet another for drinks. Have dinner with one. Get called over at 2 am to fix aleaky faucet and stay for the night. Then rush back to his place to get ready for work. Have lunch with one. Sit with another when her dog died. etc.
Since he had little time he negalected his buddies. And his work suffered as well. Only so much time to go around.
3-He was unprepared for his feelings of anger and betrayal when he saw a girl he was dating out with someone else.
My guess is that "double standard" is deeper in the psyche than one might think. he of all people was not in positon to be offended....yet he was. Deeply so. He dumped her the next day.
There are only so many hours in the day. There are only so many projects you can actually be responsible for at work. There are only so many jobs you can do in a day.
So why should a persons personal life be any different?
Don't know that I could consider "passionless" as also being "loving and wonderful."
Something about those 2 distinctions seems contridictory at a fundamental/basic level.
Presuming that to actually be the case I would agree.
In terms of "opinion."
"read the book"
Seems like an interesting thesis. But I know for a fact that one can make anything seem rational. And their are often multiple ways to spin data.
The fact remains that pair bonding is the general rule. "Other" forms tend not to be widespread or embraced by many.......as I mentioned even in nations that allow multiple spouses....people that actually have multiple spouses are often in the great minority.
"You can love multiple kids"
Perhaps because one often raises children from infancy.........it would seem resonable that if you suddenly found out that you had a child you didn't know about for say 20 years, that you would feel less of a bond as to that of child you raised from a newborn.
"Breastfeeding non-biological shared kids"
Again, infants for which humans seem hardwired (in general) to bond with. How those children feel about those folks when they grow up is an open question. As if the breast feeders feelings about all the childern they nursed.
A "wet nurse" was (and is, as as far as I know) a common enough person. Hard to think that a wet nurse feels that all the kids she nursed are just like her own children.
There are always "what if's" and they can be delt with on a case by case.
"There is definitely something to be said about the obvious thing that happens when a couple permits each other to outside relationships."
A-Not sure there is enough hard data on how many people "permit" such things.
B-My guess is that what qualifies as "permission" might be very different depending on just whom you ask.
"Honest multiple fidelity"
I'd say that is false choice in that I don't agree that such a thing is really possible.
Even when the sun is shining and things are looking good there are only so many hours in the day and only so much time.
Consider, between work, possible children, friends, martial arts training, family obligations, etc.......exactly how much time do you think you have for more than one person?
I don't think that many people would have the time or the energy to provide "fidelity" to more than one person.........someone is going to be left out.
And that is when things are going well........a crisis with a single significant other can be draining.......what happens if there is crisis with 2 or 3 people at once?
Just not convienced that a person can provide true "honest" commitment to multiple people. I think someone is always going to lose out.
A buddy of mine, back in his younger days, often used to "juggle" 2-3 girls at once. Never lied to anyone, was always very open that he was seeing other people.
3 things are worth mentioning.
1-None of the girls would tolerated it for long. None of them.
2-He was "exhausted" much of the time because of the various demands on his time, energy---physical, emotional, mental etc.
He'd go over and help one paint a room, then help another shop, then meet another for drinks. Have dinner with one. Get called over at 2 am to fix aleaky faucet and stay for the night. Then rush back to his place to get ready for work. Have lunch with one. Sit with another when her dog died. etc.
Since he had little time he negalected his buddies. And his work suffered as well. Only so much time to go around.
3-He was unprepared for his feelings of anger and betrayal when he saw a girl he was dating out with someone else.
My guess is that "double standard" is deeper in the psyche than one might think. he of all people was not in positon to be offended....yet he was. Deeply so. He dumped her the next day.
There are only so many hours in the day. There are only so many projects you can actually be responsible for at work. There are only so many jobs you can do in a day.
So why should a persons personal life be any different?