Or we can read it as "average people for the most part struggle under sexual mores that elites find congenial" -- whatever the intentions of the OP. There are those who want to ban divorce and institute other bad and zany policies, and I do not want any part of that.
-
-
Replying to @systemergent
yeah. i mean, it's an argument, and there could be something to it. it smells pretty strongly of leaning heavily on condescension, though. my experience of "average people" tends to indicate they can handle complex-as-shit sexual mores without particularly blinking
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
Fair. Maybe the issue is not so much "can this person handle this particular non-standard arrangement" (they probably can or they wouldn't be in it) but pushing people to be open to all the degrees of freedom "which you would be if you were cool and not a prig"...I don't know.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @systemergent
tbh OP doesn't scan as talking about psychologically handling arrangements so much as "flourish" sounds economic, i.e. the norm being lionized is the one where every man gets a sex/housekeeping/childrearing slave assigned and this provides him a stable base to pursue wealth from
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime
OP may well believe that, but on their face the words could mean that social pressure to pair off (in any kind of pair) in a long-term committed relationship helps to foster the material success of a nation through the emotional stability of its households.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @systemergent
*nodnod* it just feels ass-backward to me. under circumstances of impoverishment we formed pairbonds and stuck with them even when they fucking sucked, to survive. so now that we're not so impoverished we need to... act as though we were, because the norm was just so great?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @systemergent
Chaos Retweeted Chaos
Chaos added,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @systemergent
Was/are pair bonds *only* an economic solution? Were they *simply* the equivalent to having two incomes? Could the norm of *commitment* in pair bonding not have served emotional needs, despite incidental or possibly transient disagreements or difficulties?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball @systemergent
i mean, i definitely think it did, but that the needs served must have been served asymmetrically or increased egalitarianism wouldn't be so destructive to it if a behavior fulfills everybody's needs that well people will figure out to do it even without a gun to their heads
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @averykimball
Here we come back around to the social pressure. Instead of olde timey religious and political leaders scolding people to conform we have impossibly fit, smart, wealthy, confident cool kids FOMOing everyone else into aping their daring ways
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
yeah, that is a dynamic at play... honestly feels like less of a problem to me, the cycle of trying to be like the apex cool kids, getting burned and calming the hell down seems to be mostly working from where i'm standing? is your view different?
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @averykimball
Seeing the world through the portholes of LA, NY and SF probably does not give a representative sampling, so you may be right.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.