Anti

I don't dispute, 'the value of the pairbond' nor do I question it. What I question is the acceptance that the LIFELONG pair bond as the apex of relationships.

I think it no more value than the pair bond that produces loved and valued children regardless of it's duration. I see it as no more of value than the lifelong pairbond of childless couples. I see it as no more value than the pairbond of very ill partners who form temporary pairbonds wth younger lovers in order to heal. I see it as no more value than the pair bond of life long partners who can now, due to air travel, maintain intermittant contact over forty years. I see it as no more value than partners who have multiple pairbonds over 40 years.

get the gist? There are numerous combinations of possible pairbonds. None more valued than the others.

Currently most males sexuality and our family law recognise all those relationships as equal. That is the change from the introduction of the pill. People who are stuck in the regimentation of the old hierachial moralities, who happen to be mostly women, don't seem to be able to come to terms with those new changing atitudes.

When feminism goes back to addressing the basic inequalities of the old moralities and understands modern female sexualities it will gain traction with modern women.

But there again the feminists just might prefer the mysognists models.

You may well be right. As I said I think there will be some new organising principle arise and I think that will have to include the pair bond as a fundamental structure.

You're right that the lifelong pair bond is not essential, but a series of pair bonds for a lifetime probably is. A lot of the tension being caused at present is because of the fact that the pair bond is not definitively broken at divorce, but becomes highly strained through the mechanism of child support.

That has created enormous problems for men seeking to reestablish themselves, because the energy they should have available to make new bonds is maintaining a bond with someone else, while they are not actually interacting with that other person in any meaningful way.

That in turn has meant that women who want to be part of a bonded pair are left with only a partial bond, instead of a fully committed relationship.

Everybody loses, but the structures that exist to make that stretched bond happen get stronger.

ahhh anti

I agree with your openmindedness. As well as negatives there will be balancing positrives. I don't think we have found all the answers but we are certainly asking the questions.

What do you think are my attitudes towards fidality in the pairbond?

It is not as outrageous as the community found the attitude of Bertrand Russell in Morals and Marriage in 1931, It is more confronting though.