Not endorsing the rest of the thread but this point is worth a thought.https://twitter.com/1renist/status/1005434819591987203 …
-
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
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.
-
-
Most people crave structure, limits, guidelines, a paint-by-numbers life in most respects. Those who know they want something different, whether the motivation comes from a specific need or from a restless will or from the thrill of transgression, they will go and find it.
-
Thanks to both of you for a thoughtful discussion. Re: ChaosPrime’s concerns:
-
1. I think we all—even clever elites—benefit from social norms that push us away from vice toward virtue. Just because elites can enjoy metabolizing more poison before it stops them from succeeding economically doesn’t mean it’s good for them, or that poison is steak
-
2. Women of all social classes need to be able to walk away from abusers. But that’s different from no-fault divorce.
-
I suspect we’re starting from such different premises that I wouldn’t expect agreement. Having prompted you both to critique the idea so constructively is more than I’m entitled to expect on This Website, and I thank you again for it.
-
sure! i think we're coming from irreconcilable foundational commitments, yeah, but just because i oppose all your works doesn't mean i gotta be all barking-dog at you or nothin'. thanks for the response!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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
-
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.
-
Having said that, I appreciate you pointing out how easily this kind of talk can grade over into ham-handed authoritarianism. The world is in quite a pickle.
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.