One of the most annoying things to happen in a debate discussion is to find out that two or more of the participants have been using different definitions for the same word or words.
The Marxist goal which informs all this madness is their strong need to abstract the individual from the family. These - literally and proudly - Godless heathen want The State to be Mother and Father to everyone, the State above all. It is why all Communist countries reward children for snitching on their parents. This destruction of the bonds of trust between husband and wife is one more step towards that goal. Just look at subcommunities in the United States with high rates of children born out of wedlock and in single parent homes for how wonderfully this works out.
These people want to destroy the nation and the normative values of a productive society based on solid families. I am baffled as to what they think is going to take its place. Legions of pink haired tattooed assholes whining to one another about "intersectionality" instead of doing productive things like studying math and learning a useful trade? Sounds like Hell.
I don't want to default on the exchange, but I don't know how in the hell I can possibly proceed from the definition of monogamy that you propose. It is simply, and entirely, inaccurate. It's not how the word is used taxonomically, it's not how it's been practiced historically, and it doesn't bear any relation to the real world (as your litany of exceptions-in-practice reveals).
At this point, if I were to publish a response, all I could think to say--if I were to grant your definition--is "He's right, our society is not monogamous, and no society in history ever has been, so I don't see where he has a problem."
Since this is the first of a two-parter, if you want the letter exchange to proceed, please, for the love of whatever God you believe in, give me something to get my fingers into. I understand that you're an idealist and I'm a pragmatist, and thus our approaches are entirely opposed, but there's gotta be some point of contact that we can usefully explore, somewhere.
I’m not on my computer, but there’s a couple issues that I can state right away.
Firstly, this is not a formal debate . You are welcome to state any definition that you wish to use for your posts.
Secondly, I can’t stress enough, the distinction that I am making between definition, practice, and ideal. You don’t ever seem to pay attention to that particular distinction.
The word ‘meter’ has a particular definition and no meter stick in the world meets it.
The definition, practice, and ideal distinction: This will be the central difficulty in our letter exchange. I'm willing to find a way around it because it's a fertile field.
Here's my attempt to communicate my problem with the way you're doing it:
The definition you're advocating and hewing to in all your arguments is not just the "ideal," but it is a particular form of the ideal that is historically VERY VERY rare even among idealists. It basically only ever occurs in the writings of Paul, and then mostly implicitly. C.S. Lewis makes it explicit in The Screwtape Letters.
The word itself doesn't mean, and hasn't ever meant, "a single sexual partner." It literally means "a single spouse," with "spouse." Spouse doesn't necessarily imply legal or ecclesiastical recognition (as you point out), monogamy in this sense is recognized in other pair-bonding species.
If we were to agree that the formal definition is the one which we're discussing, then we have some interesting territory to explore. Your ideal definition just doesn't have a foundation in much of anything that anyone in sociology or the law or biology or even in most of theology would recognize. It is an artifact of backward-reading the romantic philosophy into the way societies deal with marriage and pair-bonding.
This is why I say "If I grant your definition, I'll concede the point that our society isn't monogamous, because no society (or almost no society) ever has been." The problem I have with doing this is because it doesn't just give us very little to talk about, it also reduces your argument to a deepity--i.e. a construction that is true when read as a trivial statement but false when read as a profound statement (such as "Love is just a word"). I don't like that situation, since I think you have a hand on a very important issue that's really worth exploring.
I think you write a lot of interesting things, some of which your true, some of which Aunt, but given that my particular interest here is in a current change in the way that our society works. I think you and I will agree on a lot of parts of it.
So I think you’ve already given yourself a lot to write about. If you would take what you have in your comments above and make them into a full post, you could lay out your current position.
To me polyamory simply means a continual orgy for all intents. It makes no sense when it comes to progeny and who is the father. If there are 10 couples that swap around all the time, who is responsible for the children that come out of such a convoluted relationship? Everyone? Have DNA tests? It's just sexual "gratification" for all intents. And then what happens when the whole concept turns bi sexual and the women are doing things with the women and the men are doing things with each other and on and on. Geezzzz...save me from that situation! A lot of young folks simply do not want the burden of the state involved in their relationship and many don't want to have children for a number of reason, some that make sense and some that are totally selfish. OK, take care!
Well, the problem is that it is something that is seriously not only being proposed but, as I will propose in a later post, being practiced at a certain level by most people in the west nowadays. What we call 'dating' nowadays is often a form of polyamory... Joe slept with Sue Monday, will sleep with Georgina Wednesday, and is planning on having Sue over all weekend.
That has been going on since I was in high school back in the 1970's! Like I've said on occasion, birth control pills turned the whole idea of what was understood to be "right" before pill on it's head. I'm the product of a out of wedlock pregnancy where as a youngster if I made my parents upset with me would say on occasion, "you were a mistake". It took my wife to figure that one out when my parents had their 50th anniversary. Fortunate for me and the rest of the world...hee hee,... they didn't abort me.
The Marxist goal which informs all this madness is their strong need to abstract the individual from the family. These - literally and proudly - Godless heathen want The State to be Mother and Father to everyone, the State above all. It is why all Communist countries reward children for snitching on their parents. This destruction of the bonds of trust between husband and wife is one more step towards that goal. Just look at subcommunities in the United States with high rates of children born out of wedlock and in single parent homes for how wonderfully this works out.
These people want to destroy the nation and the normative values of a productive society based on solid families. I am baffled as to what they think is going to take its place. Legions of pink haired tattooed assholes whining to one another about "intersectionality" instead of doing productive things like studying math and learning a useful trade? Sounds like Hell.
Hi Von --
I don't want to default on the exchange, but I don't know how in the hell I can possibly proceed from the definition of monogamy that you propose. It is simply, and entirely, inaccurate. It's not how the word is used taxonomically, it's not how it's been practiced historically, and it doesn't bear any relation to the real world (as your litany of exceptions-in-practice reveals).
At this point, if I were to publish a response, all I could think to say--if I were to grant your definition--is "He's right, our society is not monogamous, and no society in history ever has been, so I don't see where he has a problem."
Since this is the first of a two-parter, if you want the letter exchange to proceed, please, for the love of whatever God you believe in, give me something to get my fingers into. I understand that you're an idealist and I'm a pragmatist, and thus our approaches are entirely opposed, but there's gotta be some point of contact that we can usefully explore, somewhere.
All the best to you sir!
I’m not on my computer, but there’s a couple issues that I can state right away.
Firstly, this is not a formal debate . You are welcome to state any definition that you wish to use for your posts.
Secondly, I can’t stress enough, the distinction that I am making between definition, practice, and ideal. You don’t ever seem to pay attention to that particular distinction.
The word ‘meter’ has a particular definition and no meter stick in the world meets it.
The definition, practice, and ideal distinction: This will be the central difficulty in our letter exchange. I'm willing to find a way around it because it's a fertile field.
Here's my attempt to communicate my problem with the way you're doing it:
The definition you're advocating and hewing to in all your arguments is not just the "ideal," but it is a particular form of the ideal that is historically VERY VERY rare even among idealists. It basically only ever occurs in the writings of Paul, and then mostly implicitly. C.S. Lewis makes it explicit in The Screwtape Letters.
The word itself doesn't mean, and hasn't ever meant, "a single sexual partner." It literally means "a single spouse," with "spouse." Spouse doesn't necessarily imply legal or ecclesiastical recognition (as you point out), monogamy in this sense is recognized in other pair-bonding species.
If we were to agree that the formal definition is the one which we're discussing, then we have some interesting territory to explore. Your ideal definition just doesn't have a foundation in much of anything that anyone in sociology or the law or biology or even in most of theology would recognize. It is an artifact of backward-reading the romantic philosophy into the way societies deal with marriage and pair-bonding.
This is why I say "If I grant your definition, I'll concede the point that our society isn't monogamous, because no society (or almost no society) ever has been." The problem I have with doing this is because it doesn't just give us very little to talk about, it also reduces your argument to a deepity--i.e. a construction that is true when read as a trivial statement but false when read as a profound statement (such as "Love is just a word"). I don't like that situation, since I think you have a hand on a very important issue that's really worth exploring.
Is there a way you think we can meet here?
Back to you, sir!
I think you write a lot of interesting things, some of which your true, some of which Aunt, but given that my particular interest here is in a current change in the way that our society works. I think you and I will agree on a lot of parts of it.
So I think you’ve already given yourself a lot to write about. If you would take what you have in your comments above and make them into a full post, you could lay out your current position.
By the way, I use voice recognition, so a couple of the words in that previous paragraph seem a little odd.
Well if we are to focus on the change and its nature, that could be interesting and useful. I shall mull.
https://jdanielsawyer.substack.com/p/the-progressive-myth-of-monogamy my reply is up.
To me polyamory simply means a continual orgy for all intents. It makes no sense when it comes to progeny and who is the father. If there are 10 couples that swap around all the time, who is responsible for the children that come out of such a convoluted relationship? Everyone? Have DNA tests? It's just sexual "gratification" for all intents. And then what happens when the whole concept turns bi sexual and the women are doing things with the women and the men are doing things with each other and on and on. Geezzzz...save me from that situation! A lot of young folks simply do not want the burden of the state involved in their relationship and many don't want to have children for a number of reason, some that make sense and some that are totally selfish. OK, take care!
Well, the problem is that it is something that is seriously not only being proposed but, as I will propose in a later post, being practiced at a certain level by most people in the west nowadays. What we call 'dating' nowadays is often a form of polyamory... Joe slept with Sue Monday, will sleep with Georgina Wednesday, and is planning on having Sue over all weekend.
That has been going on since I was in high school back in the 1970's! Like I've said on occasion, birth control pills turned the whole idea of what was understood to be "right" before pill on it's head. I'm the product of a out of wedlock pregnancy where as a youngster if I made my parents upset with me would say on occasion, "you were a mistake". It took my wife to figure that one out when my parents had their 50th anniversary. Fortunate for me and the rest of the world...hee hee,... they didn't abort me.