Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    ... um ... where to begin ...
    
    How would a system like this be "adopted?"

    Can you really plan your relationships like this, similar to how
    you might plan your career, or some such thing?
    
    Do human relationships really work like that?

    Well Bruce, your proposal doesn't really bother me but I'm sure
    you'de have the Catholic church, Jerry Foulmouth, Pat Slobertson
    andf a host of others on your case.
    
    Since I'm not involved in a traditional heterosexual relation, I'm
    asexual, how putchskas are raised is no concern of mine. Your idea
    sounds like how the ancient Greeks brought young men into adulthood,
    the pubescent men were understudies, intellectually and sexually
    to older men, then went on to adulthood where they buggered younger
    men, etc, etc.
    
    I don't hold much hope for an idealistic human race, it has been
    screwed up since time began and will remain screwed up, regardless
    of what men propose. The Bible assures us that on the scond coming
    of Christ, Jesus will set the record straight, hmmmmmm! I'll wait
    and see.
    
    Also your idea would wreak havoc on human emotions, "well dear,
    our 15 years are up, it was nice knowing you, take care!" What
    if the other party is deeply involved emotionally?
    
                                             Later, Ray

    re: .0
                                   
    	Whether your plan has any scientific/theoretical value or not,
    it fails to take into account human variables - premature or accidental
    death,  incompatibility, emotional instability - all of which I
    doubt will ever leave us.
    
    	It doesn't get my vote...
    
    	Dan

    Please remember, that what is proposed in .0 is the norm for this
    society.  All "rules", though they sound strange to us, would be
    unquestioned, because they would lie at the absolute base level
    as accepted as life itself.  Against that background, the proposed
    society is no stranger than any other society (I mean, humans have
    formed some *strange* ones.  
    
    When judging something like this, one must see it in the context
    of its contributions to the quality of the individual life.  Its
    like this, sort of a Darwinian view of society: humans band together,
    and set up some rules, whatever, now there's an agreement that each
    makes with the rules; if it brings quality to their lives, the society
    prospers, grows and perpetuates itself.  If the humans have no quality,
    the society dies, and another springs up: in other words, if a social
    arrangement doesn't work, it dies.  All societies, give their people
    certain things; they allow customs for the various rites of passage,
    they have some form of allowing members to pass positive reinforcement
    to one another, they allow protection for the whole by its members,
    and so forth.  How long a society lasts is a measure of how well
    it does each of these things.  It can even be argued ( and I was
    once thrown out of a bar for doing it too loudly) that criminals
    are necessary because they constantly test the laws, thereby forcing
    either reinforcement of the societial values, or change, both of
    which are good for the society.  
    

    It sounds here as if the issues are being muddied.  Passing on 
    "wisdom" from the elders to the youth need not be done only in the
    context of a sexual/romantic relationship.
    
    The fact that this point was missed is indicative of our modern,
    alienated society.  Long gone is the extended family where the grandys
    lived under the same roof and helped raise and educate the young
    and free up the younger, stronger parents for the work that helped
    them all survive.
    
    I like the idea of sexual initiation but it needn't take 15 years,
    nor begin as late as 20, (personal, liberal view here!).
    
    So I'm in agreement with the idea of more direct communication between
    the wisest and the most innocent, I just wouldn't link it so closely
    with romantic love.
                              
    Sandy

    Ahem, I have a couple of little problems with this thoery,
    the major one being the use of chronological age as a sign
    of "wisdom" and "maturity."  I have known some men in my time,
    while much older than I in term of pure chronological age, were
    *younger* than I in terms of maturity and wisdom.  And after
    four or five years, one hasn't grown up yet (don't flame at
    me, this isn't male slander, I'm sure there are plenty of
    men out there who can say the same for older women they've
    dated)!  Some people are more mature at a given age than
    others.  You plan doesn't seem to take this into account.
    Also, emotional ties that are formed over a period of time,
    especially in instances where children are involved (I can't
    *imagine* ever bearing the child of someone I didn't love
    and care for very much) can't simply be broken after fifteen
    years. The emotional havoc that would wreak in even the worst cases of 
    incompatibility is shown in the notes on divorce in this conference.
    I don't think humans today could embrace such a society, whatever
    the long term benefits might be.  It just strikes me as being
    far too emotionally cold.
    
    Maybe after the nuclear war, however, we could think about
    it as an option..... ;-)
    
    Mary-Michael

RE:  .0

When I was 20, I wasn't particularly interested in 35 year young people; more 
like 18-22 year youngs.  Now that I find myself at the other end of that scale 
(how time flies), I'd sure consider a 35er, a 20er, or anything in between or 
beyond each extreme! ;'}

Seriously (and I was previously), it's an interesting idea.  My biggest problem 
with it is that it's so hard losing a single VSR (very significant 
relationship), I'd sure hate to have to go through it and know it was coming 
each 15 years or so.  Gee, that's not pleasant to look forward to.

Just chalk me up as a foolish believer in *FANTASY* (i.e. that there can be 
such a thing as a LLR, life-long relationship of quality).  Incurable romantic, 
huh?

-steve-

	My father once told me about an idea he once had about marriage:
    that it might make sense to have (similarly) three basic "marriages"
    in a lifetime.  The first for love, the second for kids, and the third
    for companionship.  Or was it the first for kids?  Something like that.

	Anyway, he is still married to my mother (going on 30 some years now)
    and I don't see any real signs of change.  The point is, that marriage
    doesn't have to be an end-all sort of destiny.  Many people do live
    their lives in a fashion very similar to that described in .0; mostly
    "BIG-CITY" life, but still quite common.

	I think that the ideas mentioned in .0 should be legitimized since
    many (as mentioned) would still regard this sort of life-style as some-
    what scandalous.  Considering that such a large part of the world
    already lives this way, I think it only reasonable that this behavior
    be recognized and respected for what it is (might make a good Phil
    Donohue segment).

	I'm 28 now, but I have had three different relationships with women
    "approaching" 15 years my senior in my life and I don't mean one night
    stands.  At one point, I was helping to raise 3 kids (a 10 yr. old,
    a 5 yr. old, and a 3 yr. old), and enjoyed every minute of it.  Unfor-
    tunately for all three relationships, I (as well as most of my SO's)
    was in much too of an unstable phase in life (either financially or
    otherwise) to even hope that the relationship would last very long.

	Thinking back on this, I suppose I should clarify that not all
    three relationships were exactly "full-time" relationships.  In fact,
    none were very sexual, well...hmmmmm...maybe I shouldn't stick my neck
    out reeeeeal far here, or I might have to delete this later in one of
    my panic modes.

	Suffice it to say: I think it's already fairly common, but has
    absolutely no recognition by, nor approval of society in general.
    Their is nothing more humiliating for a couple than to have someone
    else whispering behind your backs about such things when they don't
    have the decency to talk about it openly.  Perhaps just a general
    recognition would help (much less approval).

						-DAV0

    I've been sort of wondering about this after a few weeks of reading
    SEXCETERA, and this seems like an appropriate place:
    
    Many of the topics about society in SEXCETERA resulted in comments
    which had the flavor of "Well, you and I know better, but the world
    as a whole tends to be mean, so I don't want to have (m)any children."
    
    I feel that this attitude is a cop-out, and should be supplanted
    with one like "Well, you and I know better, so we should have a
    whole bunch of kids and raise them to be sensitive human beings
    and maybe things will get better."
    
    Where I come from on this:  I'm not ready for children yet -- only
    22 and single -- but figure that my future wife and I owe (:-)
    about three.  One for her, one for me, and one more.  This is based
    a little bit on my desire to further propagate a minority religion
    (Judaism) but also in the hopes of making this world a better place
    to live.
    
    I don't want to sound like my kids will be perfect, but having learned
    from conferences like this one, maybe I'll be able to pass on to
    them many of the positive attitudes seen here.
    
    Dave

    This is an attempted recreation of a note that got lost in the mess of
    last week.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    One of my all time favorite proposals for a marriage that would
    work for everybody, comes from _The_Moon_Is_A_Harsh_Mistress, by
    Robert Heinlein.
    
    It's called a "Line Marriage" and has the potential of being an
    eternal marriage.
    
    It can either start with a 2-person or a group marriage. As the
    partners get a little bit older (mid-late 30's), they "marry in" new
    partners. These new members of the marriage should alternate by sex and
    be younger than the original members of the marriage. As time passes, a
    great stability is maintained by having older members, with the wisdom
    they have gained from living, many middle-aged partners, some younger
    members and lots of kids. 
    
    There is a great advantage for the children in this system. It is
    very like the extended family that used to exist 200 years ago.
    Older people to help take care of the children while the younger
    adults work in their chosen field. A greater economic stability
    is maintained. The family won't go on welfare if one member loses
    a job. The kids have the example of all the different ages to look
    up to and learn from.
                                               
    To marry someone, everyone would have to know and approve of them.
    Everyone would get an equal vote in marrying and other important family
    business. This would really work because the older folks in the family
    would have the experience of all those years of simply living with
    people, and could handle things before they got out of hand. If you
    wanted out, you could be divorced and given your share of current
    assets. 
    
    I have always thought it sounded wonderful. I can see some problems
    with the system, mostly die to today's society, but on the whole I'd
    love to try it.
          
    More interest? I strongly recommend the book.
    
    Tamzen 

    Ah, yes - my all-time favorite book, for many reasons.  Heinlein
    described several types of group marriages, including the "clan",
    also in "Moon" plus one I don't recall the name of in "Time Enough
    For Love", and the "S-Group" in "Friday".  Stability, preservation of 
    wealth and guaranteed care for children seemed to be a big plus in 
    Heinlein's eyes, and I'd tend to agree with him.  Robert H. Rimmer,
    author of "The Harrad Experiment", also wrote a book (whose name
    I forget) espousing group marriages.
    
    I can't help but think, however, that traditional romantic love
    would find little place in such arrangements, and could in fact
    lead to significant problems due to jealousy, etc, though I admit
    that this bias may be a reflection of the society I'm used to. 
    
    I too think that the line marriage has a lot going for it, but I
    wonder if it would work in real life with real people who aren't
    as perfect as Heinlein's characters always seem to be.  The line
    marriage concept always seemed more like adoption to me than
    marriage!
    					Steve

    Ok anthropologists: which African tribe does this one ring a bell
    with?  It does sound familiar.

RE: .11

Yes, a great book, and in my view, a great idea.  The idea of the Line Marriage
definitely appeals to me.  I don't think that jeolousy would play as big a part
in such a set up.  At least for me, I am only jealous when I think I am
'unfairly' dumped for someone else.  A fair reason would be that I am not
providing a needed ingredient for the other's life.  I am not
dog_in_the_manger_ish.  In a line marriage nobody is leaving anyone for anyone.
And I can be quite romantic without being jealous.

In SEXCETERA I had a note on communities.  Before SEXCETERA passed away the note
was copied to HYDRA::HOLISTIC.  Still have not found enough of the right people
to get things started yet, though...

Jim. 

    I got the impression in Heinlein's TMiaHM that he was looking for
    a way to produce stable marriages in a situation ( a prision colony)
    where men way out numbered women. I think the most common marriage
    on Luna was two men and one women, but those who practiced line
    marriages found them more stable, better for the kids and property,
    etc. as stated previously.                           

    
    Another variation on this theme appears in Samuel R. Delany's work.
    
    In Dhalgren, there is a marriage (in concept, since in the setting
    there is no authority to sanction marriage) of three people.  Of
    course, since things are coming apart in the story, people have
    tended to lose a lot of their inhibitions, because the end of the
    world is a bad time to be petty.
    
    In Babel-17, three-person marriages grow out of both emotional
    attachment and professional necessity.  See, spaceships need three
    of a lot of things (Navigators, in particular) and since you work
    so closely and the hauls are long...
    
    Dave W.

    Maybe a nice idea, but it doesn't seem to work.  If you look at
    the various human cultures around the world (past and present) what
    you see is:
    
    	One or two don't seem to have a 'state' of publically-
          recognized groupings of adults from different birth
    	  families for cohabitiation and the possibility of
    	  children--i.e., they do not have 'marriage'.
    
    	All the rest allow monogamy (one man, one woman).
    
    	Most (around 60%) allow polygyny (one man, several woman)
    	  usually in the form of sororal marriage (a man marries
    	  sisters) or sequential additions of new wives as a man's
          wealth increases.  Even where allowed, it is usually
    	  not common (it costs too much).
    
    	A tiny fraction (3% or less) allow polyandry (many men,
    	  one woman), most of those allow only fraternal polyandry
    	  (a woman marries a group of brothers).  Again, even if
    	  allowed in a culture, it is not common in that culture.
    
    	'Group marriage', 'Line Marriage' and the like are very,
    	  very, VERY rare.  Mostly they are the kind of thing the
    	  neighboring ethnic groups are said to practice, along
    	  with canibalism, incest and bestiality.  Where such
    	  marriages actually exist (and thus are not mis-understood
    	  extended families), they are rare even in their own societies,
    	  much rarer than the other plural marriages are in their
    	  cultures.

    Historically and anthropologically, the only group situations which
    are likely to last more than a few years and which involve the
    sharing of finances and children are:
    
    	Extended families with clear power relations.
    
    	Celibate communities.
    
    I suspect (and was taught) that the man-woman bond grows out of our
    biological heritage, and is one-to-one by its nature (more strongly
    so for women).
    
    			-John Bishop

I have to take issue with .-1 on a couple of points.

First, our culture accepts serial polygamy. By this I mean at least North
America and Europe, I'm not sure about Central and South America, the Middle
East, Asia or Africa. But where I live it's quite common for both men and
women to marry, divorce, and remarry, sometimes repeatedly. Of course, not
everybody thinks this is a good thing, but in most places people on their
second or third marriages are considered at most eccentric, not outcasts. 

This gets to be very close to a line marriage in the cases when the divorce
is amicable, and one remains on good terms with one's former spouse. Often
there's a continuing connection, especially in the case of joint custody of
children, or other arrangements for continuing to share children, and
including new step-children.

The point about the one-one bond is debatable, to say the least. (If we
debate it, maybe we should move it to another note.)

Don.

    Re .18:
    
    I thought that the practice of running through a string of partners
    was called serial monogamy, not polygamy.
    
    	Jon

RE: .11

>    There is a great advantage for the children in this system...
>    Older people to help take care of the children while the younger
>    adults work in their chosen field... The kids have the example
>    of all the different ages to look up to and learn from.


I've seen quite a few responses to this reply, but no one has
addressed this particular paragraph. As far as the kids are
concerned, this idea is reminiscent of the "Kibutz" settlement
system, which has been practiced in Israel since the twenties.

In many of these communal settlements, kids are brought up seperately
from their parents, by "professional" kid raisers, much in the same
way described above. The kids sleep together, eat together, spend
much of their time together and are generally, brought up together.

The advantages are seemingly obvious: parents see their kids after
work, in a leisurely, pleasant atmosphere. The pressures of "bringing
up" the kids are absent. The situation promotes child-parent "love
relationship" rather than "authority-relationshipe". Parents enjoy
their children much in the same way grandparents enjoy them, in our
non-commune society.

Additionally, in that enviroment, every adult sees himself/herself
as responsible for every kid in sight. The kids end up being cared
for by the whole community.

Much experience has been accumulated over the years in hundreds of
"kibutzim". This scheme produces a special breed. In Israel, when you
say someone is a "kibutznik", it doesn't simply mean that he lives in
a "kibutz". It also means that he's a member of that special breed.

Is it good or bad? I am not sure - wish I were more knowledgeable...
"Kibutznik" is generally considered a compliment, but there are some
facets to it that aren't all that complimentary. I believe some of
the "kibutzim" have reverted to the old, time honoured, way of raising
children.

-- Ron

                                               

re .20

I have some knowledge of how kibbutzim (plural of kibbutz) raise children,
as this has been my brother's job on his kibbutz.  The system has evolved
over a period of several decades, and there have been changes.  Each kibbutz
makes its own rules, but it is possible to generalize about how most of them
do it.

First of all, on most kibbutzim, the children are cared for in a group only
during the day, while their parents are at work.  Starting at a very early age,
like under a year, they spend their days in a kibbutz children's house (day-care
center).  By the age of three or four, they are in kindergarten, and later in
primary school.

The parents drop them off on their way to work in the morning, and pick them up
late in the afternoon, so the children will be together for perhaps eight hours
during the day.  (There is always supervision, with a low student:teacher
ratio.)  The family then has dinner together, generally in the communal dining
hall, and the children spend the evening and night with their parents.

The idea of the children sleeping in the children's houses has been dropped by
most (though not all) kibbutzim.  My brother told me that psychological studies
found that this practice adversely affects the parents' health, without helping
the kids all that much.

Overall, kibbutz children (and Israeli children in general) spend more time in
peer groups from an earlier age.  A friend of mine, who worked in an Israeli
kindergarten for two-three year olds, told me that the kids were socially more
developed than her American university psychology courses had told her was usual
for children of that age.

On the other hand, kibbutz children may spend more time with their parents, as
well.  Another friend told me that when she lived on kibbutz, she spent more
time with her young children than after she returned to the US.  On kibbutz she
had all of the late afternoon and evening with them, whereas in the States, much
of that time was devoted to all the errands associated with running a household,
of which there are many fewer on a kibbutz.

It is true that kibbutz children have role models of all ages around them.  One
of the most striking things that they see is that virtually every adult works.
Women who have given birth return to work (gradually) after a matter of months.
Older people tend to work fewer hours at physically less demanding tasks, but a
kibbutz will make great efforts to find some kind of productive job for anyone
who is capable of doing anything.

    
    
    A good family tree is a useful object to climb into society with.
    
    If we all said to people's faces what we say behind their backs,
    society would be impossible.
    
    Kindness is the golden chain by which society is bound together.
    
    In today's society you have to be a little crazy to keep from going
    insane.
    
    Society judges you not by what you stand for, but what you fall
    for.
    
    
    
                                   RM

    > A good family tree is a useful object to climb into society with.
    
    
    Bull!  A golden tongue and knowing who to apply it too are.
    
    Skip