https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/10/31/societies-change-their-minds-faster-than-people-do
This is the subscription teaser version of the full article unfortunately.
The upshot is that, with the notable exception of gay marriage, society's attitudes towards social issues become more progressive not because individual attitudes change, but because older people with more conservative mindsets are replaced by younger people who are more progressive.
The article is based on U. of Chicago's General Social Survey.
Languish SJWs can either take heart that eventually everything they clamor for will come to pass, or despair that it's going to take a long fucking time.
There was some quote about how society progresses one funeral at a time. I guess it is true.
Edit: it was Max Planck about the acceptance of new scientific discoveries...ah well close enough.
So what's the implication? If you want society to change quickly, does that mean the most effective way to do so is to make deaths happen...earlier? :ph34r:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 06, 2019, 10:52:08 PM
So what's the implication? If you want society to change quickly, does that mean the most effective way to do so is to make deaths happen...earlier? :ph34r:
Soylent Green
But seriously I think the implication is just that time is on your side if you are a progressive...though while I think this is probably true right at this moment this cannot be a universal maxim since society has not progressed steadily since some time of platonic backwardness at some point in the past.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 06, 2019, 10:52:08 PM
So what's the implication? If you want society to change quickly, does that mean the most effective way to do so is to make deaths happen...earlier? :ph34r:
One posssible implication might be that if you want society to change quickly, you need to pick causes that look more like gay marriage.
What if I don't want society to change? :ph34r:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 06, 2019, 11:17:31 PM
What if I don't want society to change? :ph34r:
Transhumanism and clinical immortality then :P
Quote from: Monoriu on November 06, 2019, 11:17:31 PM
What if I don't want society to change? :ph34r:
Then you might be disappointed.
I think it is more that society changes because people die; we can lose the "progressive". To risk invoking Godwin's law I wonder how many German Jews were wandering around in the late 1930s saying "Yay! Society is getting more progressive!".
I'm not sure what will be considered "progressive" in the future.
I agree that society changes because people die, but not necessarily in a progressive direction. I suspect that people also change for a while, before their views harden to the views they take to their grave. Conceivably young people can become old farts faster than old farts become worm food, in which case society could actually regress over time.
My money on Polygamy / Polyandry
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 02:58:20 AM
I think it is more that society changes because people die; we can lose the "progressive". To risk invoking Godwin's law I wonder how many German Jews were wandering around in the late 1930s saying "Yay! Society is getting more progressive!".
Heh in the early 1900s things like eugenics and social Darwinism were, in fact, labelled as "progressive". The Nazis just took these things to an extreme. They certainly considered themselves (and were considered by many others) to be the wave of the future.
The reality is that "progressive" is not the same as "good". Older people are more small-c conservative (not exactly a revelation, that). But being conservative, however much the current right wing populists have disgraced that title, isn't necessarily a bad thing, as not all change is for the better.
Quote from: Kaeso on November 07, 2019, 08:16:37 AM
My money on Polygamy / Polyandry
That's something that ultimately requires people to care about the formalities of marriage, something that itself appears to be decreasing.
As Chesterton one remarked, the bigamist respects the institution of marriage - otherwise, why would he or she go through the trouble of being married multiple times? Even moreso with the polygamist.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2019, 08:22:47 AM
Quote from: Kaeso on November 07, 2019, 08:16:37 AM
My money on Polygamy / Polyandry
That's something that ultimately requires people to care about the formalities of marriage, something that itself appears to be decreasing.
As Chesterton one remarked, the bigamist respects the institution of marriage - otherwise, why would he or she go through the trouble of being married multiple times? Even moreso with the polygamist.
I wasn't referring to a marriage "à trois" but rather having lasting relationship between several people. Due to economic hardship, I could clearly imagine a couple losing too much if they split up and, instead, date other people while still sharing a common life, just not their bed. After all, more people more shoulders to cry on, hands to take care of the dishes and the kids. Jealousy will be seen as "petit bourgeois" and retrograde.
About the formalities of marriage, the complexity and cost of a divorce make them aberrant considering the "Tinderisation" of our life...
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2019, 08:19:09 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 02:58:20 AM
I think it is more that society changes because people die; we can lose the "progressive". To risk invoking Godwin's law I wonder how many German Jews were wandering around in the late 1930s saying "Yay! Society is getting more progressive!".
Heh in the early 1900s things like eugenics and social Darwinism were, in fact, labelled as "progressive". The Nazis just took these things to an extreme. They certainly considered themselves (and were considered by many others) to be the wave of the future.
The reality is that "progressive" is not the same as "good". Older people are more small-c conservative (not exactly a revelation, that). But being conservative, however much the current right wing populists have disgraced that title, isn't necessarily a bad thing, as not all change is for the better.
Point taken.
Tomorrow belongs to me and all that.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 06, 2019, 10:52:08 PM
So what's the implication? If you want society to change quickly, does that mean the most effective way to do so is to make deaths happen...earlier? :ph34r:
The implication at this point in time is that political parties who do not have meaningful policies to address climate change are doomed as the people who think it climate change is a matter of belief rather than science are about to die off.
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
Which arises from our tendency to focus on what is bad. Good change goes relatively unnoticed, so it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing change as bad.
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2019, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
Which arises from our tendency to focus on what is bad. Good change goes relatively unnoticed, so it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing change as bad.
While this is true, lets not forget that sometimes change can go rather horribly bad. Like, catastrophically so.
Being *careful* about change makes perfectly good sense. The assumption should be that it requires active data and reason to make changes.
I would say that reasoned argument and attempts to achieve broad consensus are the best way of ensuring that change leads to improvement. The partisan and shouty politics we currently have in the US and UK is bound to lead to poorer decisions in my view; to the detriment of all, regardless of whether your "side" is currently in the ascendant or not.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2019, 10:18:08 AM
While this is true, lets not forget that sometimes change can go rather horribly bad. Like, catastrophically so.
Being *careful* about change makes perfectly good sense. The assumption should be that it requires active data and reason to make changes.
I agree. I'm talking about gut reactions to things. If people are actually making decisions based on data and reasoning that's most of the battle right there.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2019, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2019, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
Which arises from our tendency to focus on what is bad. Good change goes relatively unnoticed, so it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing change as bad.
While this is true, lets not forget that sometimes change can go rather horribly bad. Like, catastrophically so.
Being *careful* about change makes perfectly good sense. The assumption should be that it requires active data and reason to make changes.
Edmund Burke wins again. :yeah:
Reaction to change can also go rather horribly bad. You can convince people to do all kinds of terrible shit just be convincing them that everything is going to hell.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 07, 2019, 12:13:52 PM
You prefer the guillotine, I take it? :frog:
I do.
I mean, I don't, but Burke was a very poor reader of French history - and, like many of his ilk, in the sort of comfortable situation that makes counseling time and patience stretched to an indefinite, timeless horizon, an appealing perspective. I strongly dislike the fact that people erect Burke as a champion of moderation and rationalism: his was a political stance, no more, and no less, than his opponents - one that always counsels patience, but has no actual theory of change.
I think the OTHER lesson to the OP is that change is actually inevitable. Being against change for the sake of maintaining the status quo is not just a bad idea, it is in fact, impossible.
Change is coming. You can either understand, control, and leverage it, or you can resist it and hold it back....and reap the consequences of letting the change come from chaos instead of control.
But there isn't a "lets not change" option on the table.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
That seems to be a very conservative view of change.
Quote from: Maximus on November 07, 2019, 12:53:41 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
That seems to be a very conservative view of change.
So give us a liberal view of change.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented. Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.
Quote from: Maximus on November 07, 2019, 12:53:41 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
That seems to be a very conservative view of change.
Naw, the conservative view is all change is bad unless proven otherwise. Rich was making an experiential argument that I think also does not hold water.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2019, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented. Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.
They have been implemented somewhere though, haven't they? I mean typically Canada and the US are not on the cutting edge as far as progressive policies go.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2019, 12:34:06 PM
Change is coming. You can either understand, control, and leverage it, or you can resist it and hold it back....and reap the consequences of letting the change come from chaos instead of control.
But there isn't a "lets not change" option on the table.
I disagree that the bolded part is an option.
Yeah, Berkut should probably rewatch Jurassic Park.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2019, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented. Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.
I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".
Reactionaries and progressives agree on nothing except this: that radical change is necessary and desirable. Both are "radicals", though their prescriptions for change are generally opposite.
A "conservative" in the US would mourn the era of Trump, in which the leadership of the US has done its utmost to tear up the world status quo.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2019, 02:42:35 PM
I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".
Reactionaries and progressives agree on nothing except this: that radical change is necessary and desirable. Both are "radicals", though their prescriptions for change are generally opposite.
A "conservative" in the US would mourn the era of Trump, in which the leadership of the US has done its utmost to tear up the world status quo.
I would put the opposites as reactionaries and revolutionaries. Progressives aren't necessarily trying to tear down the system rather than improve it.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2019, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2019, 12:34:06 PM
Change is coming. You can either understand, control, and leverage it, or you can resist it and hold it back....and reap the consequences of letting the change come from chaos instead of control.
But there isn't a "lets not change" option on the table.
I disagree that the bolded part is an option.
Meh, history shows that it is most certainly an option. Indeed, even if at first you fail to change and let the chaos swamp you...the outcome of that is inevitably the rise of powers that decide how to understand and control the change.
There are plenty of examples of people, organizations, or even countries that have successfully understood, adapted to, and controlled change.
And usually examples of other people, organizations, or countries that refused to adapt to the exact same change and suffered the consequences.
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2019, 02:47:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2019, 02:42:35 PM
I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".
Reactionaries and progressives agree on nothing except this: that radical change is necessary and desirable. Both are "radicals", though their prescriptions for change are generally opposite.
A "conservative" in the US would mourn the era of Trump, in which the leadership of the US has done its utmost to tear up the world status quo.
I would put the opposites as reactionaries and revolutionaries. Progressives aren't necessarily trying to tear down the system rather than improve it.
I suppose that depends on the progressive.
Conservatives and some progressives both claim that what they want is to support the existing system. Conservatives run the gamut from those who want to change whatsoever to those who want change, but at a managed pace to ensure it does more good than harm. Progressives are more likely to take the position that supporting the existing system requires necessary changes, or the system will run down (that is, be damaged by its inherent contradictions, etc.) leading to reactionaries or revolutionaries taking over.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2019, 02:57:17 PM
Meh, history shows that it is most certainly an option. Indeed, even if at first you fail to change and let the chaos swamp you...the outcome of that is inevitably the rise of powers that decide how to understand and control the change.
There are plenty of examples of people, organizations, or even countries that have successfully understood, adapted to, and controlled change.
And usually examples of other people, organizations, or countries that refused to adapt to the exact same change and suffered the consequences.
Of something like 5k years of human history, my reading is that every powerful state eventually falls, and whatever ideals a society has will eventually be abandoned and replaces.
But maybe we will be the exception.
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2019, 01:03:08 PM
So give us a liberal view of change.
I don't think liberalism is about how one views change.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2019, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2019, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented. Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.
They have been implemented somewhere though, haven't they? I mean typically Canada and the US are not on the cutting edge as far as progressive policies go.
But where is the experience of seeing it fail and particularly in a context where that would be internalized. Really the argument goes the other way, enough people have seen the absolute failure of conservative policies that they are becoming more progressive and even radical.
Quote from: Malthus on November 07, 2019, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2019, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 07, 2019, 09:43:52 AM
Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.
We have gone trough a period of politically conservative governance so not a lot of progressive ideas which have failed - they haven't been implemented. Not wanting to change seems more a question of what you know and the fear of what you don't rather than the wisdom of experience.
I wouldn't say the US is currently "conservative", but rather "reactionary".
I was thinking of a longer period of time - Reagan to present.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2019, 03:24:40 PM
But where is the experience of seeing it fail and particularly in a context where that would be internalized. Really the argument goes the other way, enough people have seen the absolute failure of conservative policies that they are becoming more progressive and even radical.
Well here is hoping these "enough people" show up and actually vote.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2019, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2019, 03:24:40 PM
But where is the experience of seeing it fail and particularly in a context where that would be internalized. Really the argument goes the other way, enough people have seen the absolute failure of conservative policies that they are becoming more progressive and even radical.
Well here is hoping these "enough people" show up and actually vote.
indeed. But the point of the Economist article is that change is inevitable and I think that is undeniable. The concern we share is whether it will happen quickly enough.
Quote from: Kaeso on November 07, 2019, 08:41:19 AM
Jealousy will be seen as "petit bourgeois" and retrograde.
I have doubts about that. Human nature plays a lot here. Of course, there are people who have zero jealousy and are willing to accept that. But in any kind of relationship, there will be a favorite among others. A First among Equals... Men who marry multiple wives often have one favourite they bed more often than the others, for a time. Usually, these wives are conditionned from birth to accept this.
Sometimes it does not, but it ain't a "natural order". People aren't programmed to accept polygamy just like that. Even a man cheating on his spouse multiple times would frown upon his wife doing the same. What we see are often younger people experimenting with life, doing it for a time, then settling down in monogamous relationships. There's no strong social pressure in most occidental countries to live 1-1 in an heterosexual relationship and practicing abstinence until marriage... Yet, people, are naturally evolving, over their life, toward this model.
I don't think it's a coincidence that most religions preach monogamy for women but are either silent or accepting of men's polygamy. Most likely, in our distant pasts, jealousy arose, leading to vendettas, wars, etc, and some philosophers/preachers sought to end that by enforcing monogamy, either via religious laws, or via social norms, like the Romans.
What are the examples it uses aside from gay marriage?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2019, 04:02:22 PM
What are the examples it uses aside from gay marriage?
Communist books in libraries
Interracial marriage
Working women can be good mothers
Abortion for any reason
Government spending on black people
Men better at politics
Legal marijuana
Interesting, it probably depends what period you look at. With interracial marriage for example - and I'm sure I've seen something similar with cannabis and arguably with gay marriage too - it's more that there is a sudden total social shift across generations:
(https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/publications/1480-3.gif)
I wonder what happened in 1990 to cause that spike.
Halle Barry?
Similarly, less of a sudden shift, but there is a shift on pot:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FT_18.10.05_marijuana_US-public-opinion-1969-2018b.png)
And I swear it's the same with acceptance of the gays and gay marriage.
Edit: Also that chart shows why I do kind of sympathise with the boomer-hate. I mean fuck me :bleeding:
Interesting how it went down for everybody but the olds around when Obama got elected...
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2019, 04:40:17 PM
Edit: Also that chart shows why I do kind of sympathise with the boomer-hate. I mean fuck me :bleeding:
The Boomers all became squares in the 80s.
Interesting how support for marijuana declined when everyone started doing coke and X. :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2019, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2019, 04:40:17 PM
Edit: Also that chart shows why I do kind of sympathise with the boomer-hate. I mean fuck me :bleeding:
The Boomers all became squares in the 80s.
That's one of the things I think about this generation too. The hippies ended up as the core vote for Thatcher and Reagan <_< :bleeding: :ultra:
It wasn't really the hippies, it was Nixon's Silent Majority.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2019, 03:02:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2019, 02:57:17 PM
Meh, history shows that it is most certainly an option. Indeed, even if at first you fail to change and let the chaos swamp you...the outcome of that is inevitably the rise of powers that decide how to understand and control the change.
There are plenty of examples of people, organizations, or even countries that have successfully understood, adapted to, and controlled change.
And usually examples of other people, organizations, or countries that refused to adapt to the exact same change and suffered the consequences.
Of something like 5k years of human history, my reading is that every powerful state eventually falls, and whatever ideals a society has will eventually be abandoned and replaces.
But maybe we will be the exception.
I have no idea how that is a response to anything I have said.
Sometimes change is just a fleeting fad, so completely ignoring it and waiting for the fad to die is the right move. I don't think there can be an algorithmic approach to figuring out how to deal with change optimally; you have to use your judgment, and you'll get it wrong sometimes no matter which way you're inclined to go.
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2019, 03:41:51 PM
Quote from: Kaeso on November 07, 2019, 08:41:19 AM
Jealousy will be seen as "petit bourgeois" and retrograde.
I have doubts about that. Human nature plays a lot here. Of course, there are people who have zero jealousy and are willing to accept that. But in any kind of relationship, there will be a favorite among others. A First among Equals... Men who marry multiple wives often have one favourite they bed more often than the others, for a time. Usually, these wives are conditionned from birth to accept this.
Sometimes it does not, but it ain't a "natural order". People aren't programmed to accept polygamy just like that. Even a man cheating on his spouse multiple times would frown upon his wife doing the same. What we see are often younger people experimenting with life, doing it for a time, then settling down in monogamous relationships. There's no strong social pressure in most occidental countries to live 1-1 in an heterosexual relationship and practicing abstinence until marriage... Yet, people, are naturally evolving, over their life, toward this model.
I don't think it's a coincidence that most religions preach monogamy for women but are either silent or accepting of men's polygamy. Most likely, in our distant pasts, jealousy arose, leading to vendettas, wars, etc, and some philosophers/preachers sought to end that by enforcing monogamy, either via religious laws, or via social norms, like the Romans.
Jealousy is a natural emotion and not in itself bad. It just needs to be faced and managed properly. And traditionally, men are not taught to manage their emotions. This is something that will need to change in the future, as men no longer retain their privilege as leaders of society. They will have to learn to deal with their emotions without going berserk, to accept that women have the same rights in sexuality and relationships as them, etc. There will be backlash (as we are already seeing the rage against feminism, MeToo, etc.), but ultimately this change needs to happen for a better, more emotionally mature society and relationship models.
Speaking from experience as a person practicing polyamory myself. :)
There is nothing wrong with polyamory or any kind of non traditional relationship. I just can't imagine it on a large scale, I can not see any kind of emotional maturity about this on a grand scale.
Polyamory is fine and has been practiced forever. It is just not something I have any interest in. I am sure I could manage just fine in polyamory if I was coerced into it I guess.
I just prefer a very intimate partnership though.
I always come across as very judgmental/full boomer because I just wonder what's wrong with a good, old-fashioned open relationship :(
I suspect you will see some acceptance of that as a lifestyle, together with considerable, ongoing skepticism as to whether its practitioners are truly embracing a new lifestyle that frees individuals from the shackles of tradition, or whether one of the partners has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the others - that is, that the relationship is not truly balanced in power dynamics, that one partner is enjoying the benefits while the others are merely putting up with it, while being fed a line about how this demonstrates their superior emotional maturity etc.
I'm not convinced that sexual jealousy is an innate human emotion.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2019, 03:35:10 PM
Polyamory is fine and has been practiced forever. It is just not something I have any interest in. I am sure I could manage just fine in polyamory if I was coerced into it I guess.
I just prefer a very intimate partnership though.
Those aren't mutually exclusive though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2019, 03:36:47 PM
I always come across as very judgmental/full boomer because I just wonder what's wrong with a good, old-fashioned open relationship :(
Those are different things though. For different people with different needs.
Quote from: Maximus on November 11, 2019, 04:12:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2019, 03:35:10 PM
Polyamory is fine and has been practiced forever. It is just not something I have any interest in. I am sure I could manage just fine in polyamory if I was coerced into it I guess.
I just prefer a very intimate partnership though.
Those aren't mutually exclusive though.
I see that. I phrased it badly.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2019, 03:37:46 PM
I suspect you will see some acceptance of that as a lifestyle, together with considerable, ongoing skepticism as to whether its practitioners are truly embracing a new lifestyle that frees individuals from the shackles of tradition, or whether one of the partners has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the others - that is, that the relationship is not truly balanced in power dynamics, that one partner is enjoying the benefits while the others are merely putting up with it, while being fed a line about how this demonstrates their superior emotional maturity etc.
Admittedly most of the examples I recall seeing were while I was in my 20s, but I only seemed to see unbalanced power polyamorous relationships / open relationships. That has left a jaundiced opinion.
Quote from: ulmont on November 11, 2019, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2019, 03:37:46 PM
I suspect you will see some acceptance of that as a lifestyle, together with considerable, ongoing skepticism as to whether its practitioners are truly embracing a new lifestyle that frees individuals from the shackles of tradition, or whether one of the partners has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the others - that is, that the relationship is not truly balanced in power dynamics, that one partner is enjoying the benefits while the others are merely putting up with it, while being fed a line about how this demonstrates their superior emotional maturity etc.
Admittedly most of the examples I recall seeing were while I was in my 20s, but I only seemed to see unbalanced power polyamorous relationships / open relationships. That has left a jaundiced opinion.
You will have assholes doing asshole things in any kind of relationship. That is not exclusive to polyamory.
Sheilbh: Open relationships are a subset of polyamory (which includes a wide range of relationship models).
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2019, 03:37:46 PM
I suspect you will see some acceptance of that as a lifestyle, together with considerable, ongoing skepticism as to whether its practitioners are truly embracing a new lifestyle that frees individuals from the shackles of tradition, or whether one of the partners has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the others - that is, that the relationship is not truly balanced in power dynamics, that one partner is enjoying the benefits while the others are merely putting up with it, while being fed a line about how this demonstrates their superior emotional maturity etc.
Making virtue out of necessity, yeah.
Quote from: ulmont on November 11, 2019, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2019, 03:37:46 PM
I suspect you will see some acceptance of that as a lifestyle, together with considerable, ongoing skepticism as to whether its practitioners are truly embracing a new lifestyle that frees individuals from the shackles of tradition, or whether one of the partners has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the others - that is, that the relationship is not truly balanced in power dynamics, that one partner is enjoying the benefits while the others are merely putting up with it, while being fed a line about how this demonstrates their superior emotional maturity etc.
Admittedly most of the examples I recall seeing were while I was in my 20s, but I only seemed to see unbalanced power polyamorous relationships / open relationships. That has left a jaundiced opinion.
It's not like monogamous relationships are never unbalanced.
Quote from: Maximus on November 12, 2019, 10:26:30 AM
It's not like monogamous relationships are never unbalanced.
Did he say they weren't?
Quote from: Solmyr on November 12, 2019, 04:21:45 AM
Sheilbh: Open relationships are a subset of polyamory (which includes a wide range of relationship models).
Ok then when you discuss polyamory you need to be more specific as to what you are talking about. Because I instantly thought we are talking about some kind communal living with multiple partners.
As for polyamory of the 'many partners all living together' type, I'm amazed anyone has the energy for such relationships. I can barely keep up with one person's issues, wants, etc. let alone two or more. It would be like when my friends were all living in communal houses, only with (even) more possibility for drama, because sex and love is thrown into the mix; and they all hated that, and left as soon as they could afford to, for venues with more privacy and less drama.
As a tangent, reminds me of a neighbour of mine, a guy who worked hard as some sort of sales person. He had a lovely wife and a baby son. One day the wife and son packed up and were gone: they discovered the guy had a whole second family, complete with another baby by another woman, at the same time.
I had a kid and t damn near killed me; here's a guy who had two at once, and dealt with the secrecy of it into the bargain! All while working full time. I didn't admire his betrayals, but I sure wondered at his energy. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on November 12, 2019, 11:16:32 AM
As for polyamory of the 'many partners all living together' type, I'm amazed anyone has the energy for such relationships. I can barely keep up with one person's issues, wants, etc. let alone two or more.
This.
There is another word for polyamory in the US. It's called "college". All fine if you have that kind of spare time.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2019, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 12, 2019, 04:21:45 AM
Sheilbh: Open relationships are a subset of polyamory (which includes a wide range of relationship models).
Ok then when you discuss polyamory you need to be more specific as to what you are talking about. Because I instantly thought we are talking about some kind communal living with multiple partners.
Polyamory means the person less emotionally invested in the relationship is sleeping around and the other person pretends this doesn't hurt them, and is OK.
:lol:
Ok got it that some of us are not fans.
I kind of agree with the notion it can be overwhelming. I mean just dealing with multiple roommates can be a pain in the ass much less multiple partners. But I am sure for some people that is not a problem at all. But that is one of the reasons I don't find it very appealing.
Fuck off Tamas. :P
And as for dealing with multiple relationships, I means many people have and deal with multiple kids. Having multiple loved partners isn't much different, except usually easier because they are adults. :D
Quote from: Solmyr on November 12, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
except usually easier because they are adults. :D
Heh. I am not going to say that kids are super easy but they are less complicated than adults...for the first 13 years or so. If you are implying it is not much different than having multiple teenage children well then :ph34r:
Also it is helpful that I have known my kids their entire lives.
But yes I also thought about that comparison. After all six people live in my house (well five in addition to me) and I have to manage relationships with all of them. However I don't know...once sex enters things it has a tendency to make it messier.
And obviously polyamorous relationships function just fine, because they have for thousands of years.
But I always looked at those Ottoman Sultans with all their wives and different kids with different women and just though "man...better you than me buddy"
The sultan wasn't expected to take an active part in child-raising though.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 12, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
Fuck off Tamas. :P
And as for dealing with multiple relationships, I means many people have and deal with multiple kids. Having multiple loved partners isn't much different, except usually easier because they are adults. :D
A parent
is in a power arrangement with their kids though: they can literally and legally order them around, make decisions on their behalf, and run their lives (at least until they get old enough). :hmm:
I suppose such an arrangement
can work with sexual/romantic partners - as in most traditional societies which practice this. :P
So I'm not sure this is the best analogy for the topic ... :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2019, 12:11:34 PM
And obviously polyamorous relationships function just fine, because they have for thousands of years.
But I always looked at those Ottoman Sultans with all their wives and different kids with different women and just though "man...better you than me buddy"
The Sultan's form of relationship may not have worked quite so "fine" if each of the Sultan's wives had the same rights as the Sultan, though. ;)
How common is polyarmory in the US?
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2019, 03:35:10 PM
Polyamory is fine and has been practiced forever. It is just not something I have any interest in. I am sure I could manage just fine in polyamory if I was coerced into it I guess.
I just prefer a very intimate partnership though.
It's not about what we individually think of it, it's about what society is willing to accept in general.
There's just not enough people willing to accept it for themselves for it to evolve into something like gay marriage, where societies will rule on it, adjust fiscal priviledges and family law to account for it.
That, I just don't see it happenning at any time in an organized human society. A tribe could practice poly amory along a finite number of people. Or a chief/Sultan/Cheik could have multiple wives where his family duties extend only to sex. But multiple sexual and love partners with multiple kids from each is a whole different beast.
Again, I do no think it is a coincidence that most organized religion seems to prohibit women fooling around for sex.
That we accept it individually is one thing, that society evolves towards this is another. No one here (hopefully? :sleep: ) would want adulterous women to be stoned. But not many people here would want its government to legiferate on it, make it "legal" and allow people to marry more than one partner, to claim child benefits for children not living with the actual parent, to recognize parental rights for more than two parents, etc, etc. And that compounds to our societies: people will close their eyes and not be too bothered, but for society to accepts something as "normal", as gay relationships are in most occidental countries means the State has to legiferate on all the family and fiscal issues.
Why is Polyamory "progressive"?
I don't think it is, but tolerance of different types of relationship probably is? :mellow:
Quote from: viper37 on November 12, 2019, 02:06:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2019, 03:35:10 PM
Polyamory is fine and has been practiced forever. It is just not something I have any interest in. I am sure I could manage just fine in polyamory if I was coerced into it I guess.
I just prefer a very intimate partnership though.
It's not about what we individually think of it, it's about what society is willing to accept in general.
There's just not enough people willing to accept it for themselves for it to evolve into something like gay marriage, where societies will rule on it, adjust fiscal priviledges and family law to account for it.
That, I just don't see it happenning at any time in an organized human society. A tribe could practice poly amory along a finite number of people. Or a chief/Sultan/Cheik could have multiple wives where his family duties extend only to sex. But multiple sexual and love partners with multiple kids from each is a whole different beast.
Again, I do no think it is a coincidence that most organized religion seems to prohibit women fooling around for sex.
That we accept it individually is one thing, that society evolves towards this is another. No one here (hopefully? :sleep: ) would want adulterous women to be stoned. But not many people here would want its government to legiferate on it, make it "legal" and allow people to marry more than one partner, to claim child benefits for children not living with the actual parent, to recognize parental rights for more than two parents, etc, etc. And that compounds to our societies: people will close their eyes and not be too bothered, but for society to accepts something as "normal", as gay relationships are in most occidental countries means the State has to legiferate on all the family and fiscal issues.
All of what you wrote there could have been said about gay marriage and relationships 70 years ago. Nobody then would have thought that society would ever accept them. Yet it increasingly has done so. These days, polyamory is getting more and more accepted among young people, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it becoming more widely accepted in the future.
I don't think there is lack of acceptance (?)
I would expect the polyamorous relationship pattern to flourish wherever or whenever young people are engaging in communal living whether by choice (as with the hippies) or because of the cost of housing and economic circumstance, as today.