Great discussion so far. Very interesting. Surprised no one has addressed the emotional side of sex, specifically the drive for intimacy and relationships of trust.
The article was an interesting read. I hadn’t considered the economic advantages past taxes.
To pointlessly advocate my Love Economy Theory, I shall rebut by claiming that these benefits one gains from one partner could be gained X-fold with X number of partners.
What we’re looking at, if marriages tend to close and deny open partnership as per open love, is a system similar to that in Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” There were “Line Marriages,” in which many husbands would marry many wives, and all would share capital and responsibilities. Most marriage-clans would run a business on top of individual jobs, usually a farm. The author explained the economic advantages of such a system, though I am not about to leaf through my copy to find them.
If marriages would remain open, and everyone was considered a “standby partner,” we would see a single, massive clan. The issues inherent in such a society would be the most fundamental - if spouses share property, does everybody then own everyone else’s property? Maybe this could be resolved by maintaining the individuality in property, and the temporary nature of LET marriages would reduce the economic impact of relationships.
@librarystudent
Do you even read this stuff before posting?
I think we already have a “love economy” - a natural order of social norms regarding relationships, emerging from people’s various preferences. It’s not necessary for everyone to be in a relationship with everyone else for this to be the case, any more than it is for everyone to be in business or a buyer-seller relationship with everyone else. People are selective about what they purchase and from whom, just as they are about who they pursue what kind of relationship with.
In fact, in the pickup community things are often phrased in economic/business terms: giving/taking value, being of higher value, advertising (peacocking), cold calling (cold approaching), putting yourself “on the market”, “diversifying” by having multiple concurrent relationships so that any one problem with one partner won’t fell you, maintaining “the power” in the relationship, etc.
This thread got me thinking a bit on a subject. Not long after it started I got hit on by an underaged girl again. I’m 26 and still get flirtation only from teen girls. I see what is going on here now. The young ones are not indoctrinated yet. Barely pubescent nubiles are not updated yet on the evil exploitation of minors, example. They just say things without any awareness of the stigmatic ramifications.
Under what age?
16, the age of consent.
I know that the age of consent applied only to girls until about 1980 in Canada. Then some judge decided that it was unfair discrimination. Which proves to my satisfaction that the age of consent was a reaction to the old practice of marrying young girls to wealthy men and such. No doubt covered by Marxian theory of exploitation (which is to say, there is none).
I may as well mention that there is a different age of consent against sodomy, which screams anti-homosexuality and the belief that it is a lifestyle choice.
I’m not exaggerating when I say that I have never felt anything of the sort. Frankly, I find that the entire matter for other people seems to revolve around an obsession with total control of a partner. I grew up being fairly immune to pop culture and never understood of any this. I’m greedy enough, yet I could never seriously hold it against anyone for not being in my pocket. It seems pathological to me.