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
-
-
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 @systemergent
I'm happy that people aren't bound to bad relationships- but I think a revisiting of the idea of commitment *in this freer, more egalitarian context* might be fruitful. Both men and women may get emotional stability (or something less Folklore Psychology) out of bonding.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @averykimball @chaosprime
Yeah "emotional stability" not the best description. Intimacy, love, trust, continuity, shared purpose, some of that jazz
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @systemergent @averykimball
i have a lot of evidence that one can build those things without either massive social punishment for failing to maintain a stable pairbond or the common usage of "commitment" which is about exclusive genital lockdown!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @averykimball
I think you can and those you know can, but a lot can't. Low-openness people, for example.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
yeah, spose that's fair. i guess after working a lifetime to have unusual capabilities i should consider that maybe it worked
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @averykimball
Contortionists happily contort, number theorists happily theorize, while the bystanders are just scared and confused
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
*frightened and bewildered would have sounded better there. Also, thank you for the sustained good faith argufying. A nod in your general direction.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @systemergent @averykimball
it is my pleasure, weird sun pal!
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.