• Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 85 subscribers
  • Views 4184 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Societal norms

JT

So this article got me thinking:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/t-magazine/artist-marriage-albers.html

A lot of what I think about as an artist and an austist, are what is typical or not in different situations.

But it is a given, typically, that we all partner with an individual and then remain monogomous for the duration of the relationship. Perhaps forever.

I don't not agree with this, I am myself in a monogomous relationship and very happy about that.

However, when did this singular rule become the way? It is unspoken that when you look across the animal kingdom, monogomous animal relationships are quite rare? Mostly animals have multiple relationships throughout their lives, so why then do humans pretend to be different?

I think there is a lot to be said for obtaining different things from different relationships. Why else would we require the cultivating of friendships if this were not the case?

Parents

  • From what I have gathered from different fields, on an evolutionary basis we are by nature mostly monogamous if you follow primatologists the morphological difference between males and females reflect the fact that males have to fight among each other to be able to have more offsprings with different females studies using our closest relatives (gorillas, chimps, bonobos etc..). Obviously this has nothing to do with "romantic" relationships. Romanticism is a cultural mouvement whose origin comes from some religious mouvement based on being able to refrain oneself, original romantics preserved the illusion by never make the realionship a reality. As for marriage it seems to come from the need to establish which kids are considered from the father as until recently with DNA tests it was impossible to know. The current mix of all these aspects is confusing! As for love I strongly recommend: The art of loving by Erich Fromm. From brotherly love (friendship) going through motherly and fatherly love and romantic love as some form of delusion indeed, a point he shared with Karen Horney a social psychologist who extensively wrote on the overweight we give to romantic relationship in western societies.

Reply

  • From what I have gathered from different fields, on an evolutionary basis we are by nature mostly monogamous if you follow primatologists the morphological difference between males and females reflect the fact that males have to fight among each other to be able to have more offsprings with different females studies using our closest relatives (gorillas, chimps, bonobos etc..). Obviously this has nothing to do with "romantic" relationships. Romanticism is a cultural mouvement whose origin comes from some religious mouvement based on being able to refrain oneself, original romantics preserved the illusion by never make the realionship a reality. As for marriage it seems to come from the need to establish which kids are considered from the father as until recently with DNA tests it was impossible to know. The current mix of all these aspects is confusing! As for love I strongly recommend: The art of loving by Erich Fromm. From brotherly love (friendship) going through motherly and fatherly love and romantic love as some form of delusion indeed, a point he shared with Karen Horney a social psychologist who extensively wrote on the overweight we give to romantic relationship in western societies.

Children
No Data