Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Martin Daly in "Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide" writes:
...One reason for their befuddlement is that, like many other social scientists, criminologists believe that violence itself is a form of pathology. This is a mistake. Although some killers are indeed insane, violence itself is an organized, evolved capability of normal human beings, pursuing their interests in a world where people's interests conflict.
And from "The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision",Capra and Luigi:
In an interesting book, Demonic Males, the anthropologists Wrangham and Peterson, studying the aggressive behaviors of apes and humans, arrive at a grim conclusion: only humans and chimpanzees are "killing apes" with the habit or at least the capability of organizing themselves in male-bonding teams with the aim of killing in a cold-blooded way other individuals of the same species. Humans and chimpanzees diverged from each other only 5 million years ago, while the gorillas branched out 10 million years ago.


...For the time being, we have to accept the observations of the two already mentioned anthropologists, Wrangham and Peterson,who reject the notion that there are on our planet peaceful, idyllic places without violence, expressing this view thus:

"Neither in history nor around the globe today is there evidence of a truly peaceful society, but the suggestion that chimpanzees and humans have similar patterns of violence rests on more than the claims of universal human violence. It depends on something more specific- the idea that men in particular are systematically violent. Violent by temperament."

In other words, violence is not a general human characteristic, but rather a specifically male characteristic.
And from "Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships":
Forget what you've heard about human beings having descended from the apes. We didn't descend from apes. We are apes. Metaphorically and factually, Homo Sapiens is one of the five surviving species of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans...The fine print distinguishing humans from the other great apes is regarded as "wholly artificial" by most primatologists these days.

...Like bonobos and chimps, we are the randy descendants of hypersexual ancestors

...We'll show that human beings evolved in intimate groups where almost everything was shared-food, shelter, protection, child care, even sexual pleasure. We don't argue that human beings are natural-born Marxist hippies. Nor do we hold that romantic love was unknown or unimportant in prehistoric communities. But we'll demonstrate that contemporary culture misrepresents the link between love and sex. With and without love, a casual sexuality was the norm for our prehistoric ancestors.
Bonobos, the species of apes that branched off from species of chimpanzees, approximately 2 million years after we branched off from common ancestor shared with chimpanzees, are peaceful, sexually egalitarian and extremely promiscuous. The evidence presented in "Killing the Competition" is that homicide (which is representative of overall violent behavior) occurs in situations of relative inequity of resource distribution among young human males. Not absolute lack of resources, relative inequity, very much inclusive of "tokens of respect."

One of the slogans of the 70s feminist movement was "The personal is the political." We like to win. We very much do not like to lose. We want to share with those close to us. We want to protect the vulnerable and valuable.

Recent research on the embodied mind and the process of cognition reveals that feelings are thoughts we form about unconscious, unbidden, bio-chemical emotional states we enter into previous to forming the thought which is a feeling. My argument, based in good part on personal experience and reflection, and perhaps not yet well developed, is that if we wish to have a more peaceful society, the thought that our culture should first promote would be something like "Women must hold full, free, self-aware, non-transferable ownership of their own sexuality." Until women hold full ownership, they will not feel free to share their sexuality from a place of kindness and generousity . Until women feel free to share their sexuality from a place of kindness and generosity, competition will ensue. I do not believe that halfway measures, such as a return to archaic hypocritical rule of extreme universal monogamy, as promoted by some engaged in current discussion, will serve.

I don't promote this point of view based on some notion of female superiority. I promote it because I have been impressed by the peaceful (or at least more peaceful-lol) behavior I have witnessed exhibited by many males in my social circle when I endeavor to hold the thought structure I am promoting. For example. who amongst us is more peaceful in his striving than Zalo living amidst social circle of young females endeavoring to hold such a thought structure?

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by enigmaT120 »

I can't deny a liking for violence, but I believe it's wrong to indulge most of the time. Almost all of the time. Just religion holding me back. Besides, I might not win.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1886
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Jean »

You only forget that women don't have the mean to enforce this ownership themselves.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6352
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:45 am
... if we wish to have a more peaceful society, the thought that our culture should first promote would be something like "Women must hold full, free, self-aware, non-transferable ownership of their own sexuality." Until women hold full ownership, they will not feel free to share their sexuality from a place of kindness and generousity . Until women feel free to share their sexuality from a place of kindness and generosity, competition will ensue.
Will full female ownership translate into sharing with everyone who wants some? I have my doubts. If not, competition.

Add to that the fact that males who are getting as much (if not more) than they can handle, still fiercely compete with one another. Evidence, NFL, NBA, MLB.... Competing for mates is not the only form of competition.

Add to that the fact that some males are insatiably greedy. Evidence, Genghis Khan. They don't like to share.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Riggerjack »

Wouldn't it be nice if that would fix everything? But, nope, not a chance. We are hardwired for violence and competitive behavior.

Our current issues with violence seem to revolve around trying to suppress it. With no socially acceptable outlets, we have wild flare ups, followed by shaming and suppression. Now, I like living in a world with very limited violence, particularly as I have proven to myself that I'm not much good at it.(I started plenty of fights a kid, and lost most of em.)

But I am old enough to have been taught "schoolyard rules" of fighting. When I was a kid, someone getting stabbed was a sign that violence was out of control, shootings were still in the future. And every school had a place where school rules didn't apply. So if I had a problem with Tommy, I could invite him to the smoke shack, and settle it. He could show up or be shamed. If he showed up, and we fought, there were plenty of kids around to tell the story afterwards. Since we were fighting for pride and position, we fought one on one, mostly with fists and wrastlin'.

Today, with no outlet, and no social pressure to stand up and fight, all the "rules" are out the window. What I tend to think of as "bitch moves" (hitting from behind, using tools, jumping someone with a few friends to back you up, spraying mace and then running away, basically anything involving a surprising, overwhelming offense) have become viable options, since standing and fighting aren't taught anymore.

Now, a goodly amount of privilege is involved in that last paragraph. We never really had that society in which people all fought by rules, but if you were aspirational, that was the standard by which you were measured. Other things happened, but they happened on the fringes, in the dark. We have paid a heavy price for suppressing violence, and we aren't done paying.

But no, more free love ain't gonna fix this. But it may help in other ways...

slowtraveler
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by slowtraveler »

"In other words, violence is not a general human characteristic, but rather a specifically male characteristic."

Contradicts my 2 and a half decades of living with humans.

Women are often far more violent but smarter about it, more legally protected, and more effective at hiding the signs.

Ever heard of black widows?

But I can't say a world with more widespread acceptance and birth control (for all genders) is a bad thing by any stretch. I like that idea.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by BRUTE »

Jean wrote:
Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:32 pm
You only forget that women don't have the mean to enforce this ownership themselves.
women are as violent as men when given the chance. they're just not as good at it overtly, so they prefer sneaky versions.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by ducknalddon »

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:19 pm

But I am old enough to have been taught "schoolyard rules" of fighting.
The people I remember winning those games in my school are dead or in prison now.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

enigmaT120 wrote:I can't deny a liking for violence, but I believe it's wrong to indulge most of the time. Almost all of the time. Just religion holding me back. Besides, I might not win.
Well, Jesus was a pretty serious pacifist and a pretty serious feminist. Unfortunate that the Christian religion was later infused with the anti-sexual body loathing of the cult of Mani of the Shrunken Leg by way of Augustine and the concept of Original Sin.
Jean wrote:You only forget that women don't have the mean to enforce this ownership themselves.
Although I agree that systems analysis would preclude strict differentiation, I did not mean "ownership of sexuality" to be limited to "control of access to sexual organs." By analogy, some thug could take your guitar away from you and bash you over the head with it, but you would still "own" the skills, talents, experience, feelings, thoughts, narrative, ego-strength and philosophy you associate with music. I am concerned with the chattel legacy inherent in monogamous marriage practices in the West and polygynous marriage practices elsewhere. I don't think modern egalitarian monogamous marriage or similar domestic partnership contracts have proven to be a non-problematic solution, because they are more than a bit of a hack job.
Ego wrote:Will full female ownership translate into sharing with everyone who wants some? I have my doubts. If not, competition.

Add to that the fact that males who are getting as much (if not more) than they can handle, still fiercely compete with one another. Evidence, NFL, NBA, MLB.... Competing for mates is not the only form of competition.

Add to that the fact that some males are insatiably greedy. Evidence, Genghis Khan. They don't like to share.
I didn't mean to imply that "full female ownership of sexuality" is THE SOLUTION. I only suggested it as a first focus towards tweaking the overall system. My perspective is systems theory towards permaculture towards anthropology. If you were an intelligent alien doing a field study on humans you would observe romantic infatuation, affectionate pair-bonding and some degree of adherence to overt contract (currently estimated at 50% for males, 75% for females), but you wouldn't observe anything like strict practice of monogamy. When surveys inquire about number of sexual partners, males report more partners than females. This is likely due in part to lying, but it also has to do with the hidden market reality of varieties of prostitution and promiscuity. For every insatiably greedy NFL star male having sex with 300 different women in the same year, there are also umpteen female porn stars providing sexual variety for 100,000 different men in the same year. Most of us dwell in some place of shared denial with the likes of Bill Clinton, crudely parsing legal or culturally acceptable narrow definition of sex out of complexity of our broader sexuality.

Anyways, I agree that competing for mates is not the only form of competition, and I erred in just typing "competition" rather than "competition resulting in violence." Let's posit starting from the notion of competition for territory instead, imagining humans as more like independent loner bears than tribal hierarchy chimps. Dominance over a certain acreage of oak and wild blueberry could support independent survival in the same manner that a certain amount of money invested in Apple and McDonalds could support independent survival for a member of this forum. So, maybe imagine putting each independence seeking adult member, male or female, of this forum on his or her own piece of oak/blueberry acreage. Then figure out how each individual is going to mate 2 or 3 times/week, taking the tendency towards male dominance/violence into some level of consideration. What I am trying to expand upon is my observation that my own struggle to maintain independence and/or dominance over my very own oak/blueberry acreage (both literal and metaphorical in my case-lol) while still getting well-laid allowed me to gain a greater appreciation or more optimistic perspective on the average human male's ability to share when/because he can clearly see that it is in alignment with his own self-interest.

Going back to my imaginary realm where each independent human adult is on his or her own acreage. Let's suppose the social "rule" is that it is expected that you will be mating with an average of 3 other humans whose independent acreages currently adjoin your own. Now imagine "adjoining independent acreages" to encompass the multitude of possibilities in our modern economic and communication systems. What I am suggesting is that most men (Genghis Khan perhaps being exception) would at least consider that it might be in their self-interest to agree to peacefully share access to independent females in this manner, and this sharing of access would tend towards creating a more resilient social web than is currently promoted by the remnants of adherence to practice of patriarchal line inheritance of assets. I would also suggest that this is where we are already heading due to modern economic realities whether or not I am made Queen of the World-lol. Education of females being highly correlated with lower birth rate and therefore fewer life-energy years devoted to "shared acreage" task of co-parenting, and aspirational class membership being highly correlated with growing trend towards egalitarian poly-amory or similar practices.

@Felipe and BRUTE: I absolutely agree that females can be as hateful, mean-spirited, cruel, vindictive, conniving, cold-hearted... as males. However, it simply is not true that they exhibit as much violent behavior. They more frequently exhibit socially exclusionary behavior. In overly simplistic terms, when females abuse power they may banish or humiliate another human, but they do not frequently kill (infanticide under stress being exception, and this behavior would still usually fall under category of severe neglect or banishment from care rather than violence.) And, risk analysis would inform that DEAD is more endgame than DISRESPECTED.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Riggerjack »

They more frequently exhibit socially exclusionary behavior.
And what do you think a fight is about?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack wrote:Our current issues with violence seem to revolve around trying to suppress it. With no socially acceptable outlets, we have wild flare ups, followed by shaming and suppression.
I said: They (females)more frequently exhibit socially exclusionary behavior.

Riggerjack said: And what do you think a fight is about?
Right. We are almost on the same page. "Shame and suppression" are "socially exclusionary behaviors" which can be applied to both aggressive and sexual behavior. Female humans also have tribal group dynamics which are sometimes co-operative, sometimes competitive. In some very pro-sexual communities, females will co-operate in the sharing of sex, just like any other social sharing event. For instance, the task of co-operating to arrange a partner-swap evening is not very different from the task of co-operating to arrange a dinner party, which really isn't all that different from the task of co-operating to set up one of your BF's buddies to be your BFF's date for the prom.

One behavioral difference noted in studies of speed-dating is that females will seek to partner with males they perceive to be right around their level of attractiveness/status, while males will put a positive check next to the box of any female above their bottom level of acceptability no matter how likely rejection or lack of success in security because status unbalanced. For the sake of my argument, let's assume this difference in behavior is due to cultural push towards long-term monogamous match-making for females vs. males. If this is true than many females should tend to behave differently under different dynamics that allow for cultural exception to this promoted behavior, for instance Spring Break!!! ( I rest my case.)

Anyways, due to the fact that online dating greatly increases ability of males to shoot for the stars in approaching females, it also greatly increases the unfortunate tendency of motivated to be matchy-matchy females to become grumpy, or even insulted and insulting, when approached by many men who clearly are not their peers. For instance, it kind of makes me a little bit grouchy when men who are borderline illiterate hit on me, but I try to be nice. Also, I have repeatedly heard independent reports of pretty damn vicious virulent racism, ageism and political groupism exhibited by females when politely approached by men who are maybe too brown or too red or too old or too young. My point being that it is to some extent the manner in which society traps females in the role of "maintainer of monogamy" that causes this sort of almost pathological tendency to maintain ego strength with rigid sexual boundaries.

Also, the more economic dependency women have on men, the more likely they are to engage in or promote slut-shaming. For instance, when a younger female made some overt moves on my husband when I was raising young children with him, I must admit I engaged in a bit of slut-shaming myself. (Although, very shortly afterwards I wondered why in the hell I bothered. "Take my husband...PLEASE, take my husband." ) Now, I've been around the block, and in enough different roles in enough different sorts of relationships, that I think I can empathize pretty well with the core fears of any party at the contract negotiation table. What I am suggesting is that independent-minded females who are not currently engaged in the task of raising young children be the ones who bravely drop their defense shields first. I think it will be good for social harmony and everybody's physical health.

slowtraveler
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by slowtraveler »

@7wb
The only killings I have seen of any multicellular organism containing human genetics are from abortions and cancer. I have been almost jumped by groups of males multiple times in my teens. I had been actually hit by females in a violent manner many more times. As an adult, violence is rare and I like it more that way. I have heard both men and women talk of wanting to kill someone out of anger.

The first street fight I saw in person was between 2 girls. Viscous stuff.

Fighting happens as a result of perceived disrespect or for power - social exclusion fits into both categories.

You're talking about letting women have freedom over their own sexuality. Hasn't this transition already happened in the west?

Most of my lovers have had their own blueberry/oak patch. One currently shares an oak/blueberry patch with a coalition of other females so the idea you're proposing already happens: women in a space where they control those factors you mention.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6352
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:05 am
What I am suggesting is that most men (Genghis Khan perhaps being exception) would at least consider that it might be in their self-interest to agree to peacefully share access to independent females in this manner, and this sharing of access would tend towards creating a more resilient social web than is currently promoted by the remnants of adherence to practice of patriarchal line inheritance of assets.

I don't doubt that this can exist temporarily and trivially in an artificial world like a college campus or a commune where young people are learning to be independent adults. The thing your model misses is that there is something so much better than mere independence.

INTERdependence. Deep, boundless connectedness. Something so much more than simple, crass, "access to women".

Deep connections are made in twos. Add a third person and the bonds become shallow and extremely limited. That's before they break. And they always break. Surely you know that to be true.

We've been arguing this for years. Some here listen to you and actually think it is possible, until they learn through trial-and-error that it isn't.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Felipe wrote:You're talking about letting women have freedom over their own sexuality. Hasn't this transition already happened in the west?
Good question. I would suggest that the transition is still in progress and it is currently a bit of a mess.

Regarding what you communicated about your experience with violent females, I would ask if you are familiar with the character of Joe Gargery in the Dickens novel "Great Expectations?' He is a strong, gentle man who witnessed his father's physical abuse of his mother in his childhood, and vowed to never behave in a similar manner. So, he ends up married to a hot-tempered woman who takes advantage of his resolve to chivalry. Unfortunately, I think this is where we currently find ourselves in our current social functioning. IOW, I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely that a female would ever strike you in anger if she had any inkling that you might strike back, or even if she had good reason to believe that you might report her to the authorities. Also, domestic or intimate disputes aside, it is still very rare behavior for human females to form bands and then go out looking for a physical fight. Most killings or serious assaults are male on male violence.

One of my former lovers was raised in a situation of high affluence and extreme civility. His first career was Presbyterian minister. His first wife was a nutcase who kept a hundred birds in the basement and did frequently lash out at him. Finally, he told her that if she did it again, he would strike her back, and he did give her a light smack on the face. She did not suddenly become an easy person to live with, but she never hit him again.
"Ego" wrote:We've been arguing this for years. Some here listen to you and actually think it is possible, until they learn through trial-and-error that it is a figment of your hyper-sexual imagination.
People listen to me? :o There have been several other practitioners of poly-amory on this forum, but none to my knowledge that adopted the practice based on my advice. Please recall that I have the same personality type as Steven Colbert, so it is my expectation that most people take my expositions about as seriously as his run for presidency. And, it is NOT a figment of my imagination that if I were to enter the search term polyamory on a modern dating site, pages and pages of individuals with whom I shared no previous acquaintance would appear. ( Also, I would note that you sometimes come off just an eensy-bit Puritanical, and your use of the word "crass" above did nothing to dispel that notion. I would further note that your off-hand dismissal of "access to females" comes off as a bit indicative of a Golden Boy experience of rarely having problem in this realm, not unlike "Let them eat cake." )

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. I was going off on a long, fanciful model-building tangent from what I myself believe to be a false premise in my last post. I don't think that human beings are essentially independent, solitary loners like bears. I was actually amusing myself a bit or poking fun at the tendency of many of the members of the forum to imagine themselves that way. I believe that human beings are inherently interdependent social animals.

OTOH, I disagree with your perspective that the dyad is, or should be, the only or primary unit of deep connection in human experience. Most human beings exhibit mixed striving towards need for Security/Solitude, Sexual Dyad/Pair-Bond, and Tribe/Family/Community. You are correct in communicating that the desire for the Sexual or Dyad bond is not likely to be achieved through "just-sex" interactions. There are many humans who have high-drive for physical sexual interaction combined with low drive towards emotional dyad bond and vice-versa. Surely, you have some degree of ability to empathize outside of your personal preferences and experience, and recognize that there are other humans who would feel that primary focus on maintenance of emotional dyad bond to be either rather suffocating due to greater need for solitude/security/autonomy in their nature, or rather lonely or limited or boring due to greater need for tribe/sociability/variety in their nature? For instance, many people do not feel like a dyad is a complete family. They would say that you at least need a little dog in the picture :lol:

One of my favorite books is on the topic of designing human living environments in alignment with natural human patterns and desires. For instance, most humans experience a good feeling if they are seated in a garden with something like a wall at their back and an open vista in front of them. There are several patterns for design of variations on the marital bower and other places that would best allow for all sorts of intimate dyad interaction. There are also patterns for design of small houses within community for the solo elderly, and hidey-hole play spaces for children seeking solitude, and public spaces for festivals. I understand that I might sometimes come off as crass when I use terminology such as "access to females" or attempt economic analysis of trade within my intimate relationship, but that is just vocabulary towards model-building or problem-analysis. You are wrong if you believe that this means that my relationships are shallow or lacking in complexity or intimacy. Obviously, shared experience over time does add depth and patina beyond the instant intimacy that can be achieved by two amiable strangers staying up all night and openly sharing conversation on a train, ( I have thrown my all in the shared pot and walked the shared hallway floorboards worn in a marriage or two myself) but it has been my experience that the complexity of any given relationship is usually a direct product of the complexity of the individuals engaged.

So, forget about the solitary bear premise and my overly simplistic ramblings from there, but maybe give some level of due consideration to my more tentative initial suggestion.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6352
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:42 pm
And, it is NOT a figment of my imagination that if I were to enter the search term polyamory on a modern dating site, pages and pages of individuals with whom I shared no previous acquaintance would appear.
Enter the search term "unicorn" or "fairies" in the same dating sites and you will likely find pages of prospects who believe they exist too.

I'm pretty outgoing and have met a lot of people in my life. In that time I have met uncountable (many thousands of) couples who have been together for a decade or more. I have never met a poly triad (or greater) who needs more than the toes on one hairy sloth's foot to count the number of weeks they've been together.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:42 pm
( Also, I would note that you sometimes come off just an eensy-bit Puritanical, and your use of the word "crass" above did nothing to dispel that notion.
Just a teensy bit? I was trying much harder than that. When it comes down to it, the people who are worthy of the full, unrestrained, everything-you've-got, life-long commitment.... they are looking for someone a teensy bit Puritanical with regard to fidelity. After all, they've got to subject this person to the clinical examination of Granny. Granny knows better than anyone that Puritanical fidelity is a defining characteristics of a person worthy of commitment.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:42 pm
I would further note that your offhand dismissal of "access to females" comes off as a bit indicative of a Golden Boy experience of rarely having problem in this realm, not unlike "Let them eat cake." )
Life is hard enough as it is. It becomes much easier when you find one person who completely and unequivocally has your back. Trying to find more than one, and then trying to find a way to make all three of you (or more :o ) work with parents and grandparents and siblings and jobs and housing and friends.... that is searching for living, breathing fairies riding unicorns.

Or purposely setting oneself up to fail.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:42 pm
For instance, many people do not feel like a dyad is a complete family. They would say that you at least need a little dog in the picture :lol:
Hum. Typically you talk so much but say so little. In this one quote you talk little but say so much.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego wrote: I have never met a poly triad (or greater) who needs more than the fingers on one hairy sloth's hand to count the number of weeks they've been together.
lol- I would suggest that maybe this discussion has gone a bit apples and oranges. What I mean when I say poly-amory is all the possible variations on open consensual non-monogamy, not the much less frequently observed sharing-everything-in-same-space-triad (or greater.) My great-grandfather, whom I mentioned in some other post as being once described in a publication as a gentleman and a scholar, was also a bigamist. This was not behavior he exhibited within the context of an open, consensual contract, and rumor has it that my great-grandmother was not very happy when the fact of his second family with former secretary was revealed. As I mentioned above, the current estimate of extramarital sexual activity is quite significant. The number of marriages that are estimated to be sex-dead or sex-starved is also very high. Many people, myself included, have found themselves invested in long-term relationships in which their partners are no longer interested or willing to engage in sexual activity, with no amount of effort or therapy able to effect a change in this circumstance. I do not believe that you can understand the misery of such a situation if you have not experienced it yourself. I no longer believe that throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and deciding to divorce is always the best option. I think people can learn to handle the complexity of splitting or sharing aspects of practical, domestic, social, emotional and sexual partnership with more than one person. But, I don't think everybody moving into the same house and bed together would often be likely to prove successful :lol:
Granny knows better than anyone that Puritanical fidelity is a defining characteristics of a person worthy of commitment.
Eh, you might be surprised. Grannies are complex people too. I was recently visiting with my BF's 80 something year old mother and his 77 year old aunt. The aunt and I had an amusing discussion on the topic of being fake blondes. My BF's mother and his aunt both clearly love him, but they also know that he can be a bit of a shit-head, so they both told him that he better be nice to me. One way in which he was recently nice to me was he helped me to choose a new young lover. I try to help him find other lovers too, but it is more difficult because not so many females are available. I miss cuddling with him when I am sleeping somewhere else, we have lots of fun on adventures together, and I didn't even threaten to break up with him when he went ballistic just because I got cheese-spread all over my fingers trying to eat after dark in off-grid camper. I just said "If you hear me say F.U., what I mean is Felix Unger."

Meanwhile, another former polyamour has totally covered my back by being caretaker of my permaculture project while I am in exile due to fallout related to my sister's mental illness. We are no longer sexually engaged, but we are going to move forward with legalizing a partnership on the project. He is a seriously good egg in my book, and I trust him with my "baby", but I would have a very hard time believing that he could stick to a contract of monogamy. It just doesn't seem in alignment with his nature. It would be like thinking you could leave me alone in a room with some cookies. I accept him as he is, good and bad. I accept my BF as he is, good and bad. I accept my great-grandfather as he was, good and bad. I try to accept myself as I am, good and bad ;)

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by BRUTE »

Ego wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:26 pm
Typically you talk so much but say so little.
lol shots fired

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Riggerjack »

@7,

What are you trying for here? Women having more, conscious control over their sexuality is likely to be a good thing, but it won't have a measurable result in decreasing violence. You may as well try fixing climate change by adjusting the interbank lending rate. Yes, it may have an effect, but it won't be big, or repeatable, and it may have many far more important direct unintended consequences.
The two are only vaguely related to each other. Big changes in one may have slight effect on the other, but this hardly seems the way to address it.

As to poly vs mono, eh. Do what you like, if you still like it, do it more. The expected rewards of each are not compatible with the expected rewards of the other. Go with what appeals, but just be aware of the choice made. ie, don't go into poly looking for the stability of mono, and don't go into mono expecting the variety and quantities of poly. Keep the strengths of each in mind when making the choice.

But neither choice has much to do with violence.

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by Kriegsspiel »

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:33 am
@7,

What are you trying for here? Women having more, conscious control over their sexuality is likely to be a good thing, but it won't have a measurable result in decreasing violence. You may as well try fixing climate change by adjusting the interbank lending rate. Yes, it may have an effect, but it won't be big, or repeatable, and it may have many far more important direct unintended consequences.
The two are only vaguely related to each other. Big changes in one may have slight effect on the other, but this hardly seems the way to address it.

As to poly vs mono, eh. Do what you like, if you still like it, do it more. The expected rewards of each are not compatible with the expected rewards of the other. Go with what appeals, but just be aware of the choice made. ie, don't go into poly looking for the stability of mono, and don't go into mono expecting the variety and quantities of poly. Keep the strengths of each in mind when making the choice.

But neither choice has much to do with violence.
I like to think of 7 as the kinder, more feminine CPL Person from Generation Kill:

Cpl. Ray Person: Look at this shit, how come we can't ever invade a cool country, like... chicks in bikinis, you know? How come counties like that don't ever need Marines? I'll tell you why, it's lack of pussy that fucks countries up, lack of pussy is the root fucking cause of all global instability, if more hajis were getting quality pussy, there'd be no reason for us to come over and fuck em up like this, cause a nut-busting haji, is a happy haji.

Sgt. Brad 'Iceman' Colbert: Ray, how much Ripped Fuel have you ingested?

Cpl. Person: I'm on it like a mother fucker Brad, haha!...

Sgt. Colbert: Well, no more of that shit...

Evan 'Scribe' Wright: An interesting theory though.

Cpl. Person: Yeah, yeah, you should quote me on it, you know what, you should definitely quote me on it, this whole thing comes down to pussy! Look, if you take the Republican Guard and comp their asses for a week in Vegas, no fucking war!
Wright: So the war is not about oil or WMDs.

Cpl. Person: No, in the opinion of this Marine, its about pussy.

Wright: And its not about Saddam.

Cpl. Person: No, Saddam is just part of the problem, if Saddam invested more in the pussy infrastructure of Iraq than he did in his fucking gay ass army, then this country would be no more fucked up than say, Mexico.

Sgt. Colbert: Ray, please shut up... thank you.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Crime, Sex, Politics : Systems Analysis

Post by BRUTE »

stay frosty

Locked