Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Childless relationships

Childless relationships
June 08, 2013, 07:24:48 PM
Do they only work out while the wife is young and fertile?There will come a time close to middle age when there will be no reason at all to stay loyal to her (excluding metaphysical love)
Most relationships are based on the survival strength of the potential child the couple would have together. Would fear of dying alone hold the relationship together?

Re: Childless relationships
June 08, 2013, 10:54:07 PM
I dont really like the term `relationship`, it smacks of the sort of semi-clinical PC talk that drains all the colour out of life, the same lexicon that brings us `partner`. Not that you mean it in any such sense sir, just a complaint I wanted to air!

This is a very broad query requiring a lot of conjecture, so I will avoid an attempt at a direct answer. The position of tradition is generally monogamous marriage, a human social institution which has both personal and societal elements. A childless marriage may be personally fulfilling to each participant, lots of things can keep such a union together, but it is a failure. It is less likely that it will last. A young and fertile wife is not an absolute necessity for success, it just improves your chances. Men are most strongly attracted towards women just before the prime of their reproductive life, that can give a man the best chance of plentiful, strong offspring in a long term union.

The greatest things that a woman can give a man (excluding metaphysical love) are children and beauty. With the latter fading with time, the lack of the former would become a sharp discomfort. Current western culture fetishizes romantic love and forgets about procreation, so I dont know whether this feeling is something considered evil, abnormal or some sort of betrayal. Is it?

Re: Childless relationships
June 08, 2013, 11:57:27 PM
There is also another possibility: Mystical union.

I see most relationships in terms of complementary halves. The partners fit together to form some sort of spiritual, psychic and (in the case of children) physical whole.

Dysfunctional people tend to have dysfunctional partners (and sadly: Dysfunctional offspring), just as healthy people have healthy better halves.

This also goes for childless relationships. Love doesn't necessarily need a 'reason' - not one we can always comprehend, at least.

Re: Childless relationships
June 10, 2013, 04:05:33 AM
How would you define metaphysical love as removed from any other conception of love?

From my observations, “love” can only be viewed in a holistic sense. “Procreation” cannot be taken as an end in itself and should only be valued in terms of the relative functionality of that progeny. Without the right foundation i.e. level-headed and functional parents (that are in love), the child is already at a biological and environmental predisposition to a dysfunctional life. Not that this can't be overcome.

On the other hand, this is modern times we’re talking about, the age of the great kali-yuga mind-body-soul fuck, so maybe the right answer is to turn the other cheek and join the party while it lasts !

Re: Childless relationships
June 10, 2013, 09:08:15 AM
From my observations, “love” can only be viewed in a holistic sense. “Procreation” cannot be taken as an end in itself and should only be valued in terms of the relative functionality of that progeny. Without the right foundation i.e. level-headed and functional parents (that are in love), the child is already at a biological and environmental predisposition to a dysfunctional life. Not that this can't be overcome.

Apparently research shows that the role of the environment is almost negligible in the development of children. If you have two healthy, functional, intelligent people having children they will most likely turn out the same way. While divorce is a great trauma for developing kids, outside of that even a loveless union wouldn't be a problem. Biology is destiny etc.

As for a definition of metaphysical love, I don't think one is needed. Its use here is probably to account for subjectivity and individual circumstance, the argument excludes it.

Re: Childless relationships
June 10, 2013, 11:24:06 AM
Apparently research shows that the role of the environment is almost negligible in the development of children.

Link?

Re: Childless relationships
June 10, 2013, 08:32:26 PM
Somebody open a window, we got some aspies burning their gears in here.

If you take Darwinism as telos, then of course childless relationships are FAIL.

Granted, instinct comes from a survival process, but that does not mean it necessarily serves it all the time. Thus the love instinct can be enjoyed without filling said need. Much like assholes and aubergine rubber mushroom tubes one could say.

Being really philosophical myself, I see my wife as a second brain running introspection on me, and I on her. There are also efficiencies to be gained in a marriage [I hate laundry, she is bad with money], but that comes with the possibility of inefficiencies based on taste.

Relationships can also add a depth to a personal life that is unavailable to a loner. Friendships fade with time, some grow stronger. Your mileage may vary.

Metaphysical love, Darwinian need? It is said the 5 flavors will deaden the palete, can't imagine having only two.


Re: Childless relationships
June 11, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
Great post, Ratatosk!

Love = life as such, from a higher, less ego-driven perspective.

I, too, see my girlfriend as something of an 'external control-mechanism' (that doesn't really sound all that romantic, but you get my point). She's conscious of parts of reality that I am largely unconscious of, and vice versa.

If I am out of tune with her, I am out of tune with reality. And again, vice versa.

We are both fundamentally different from each other and fundamentally the same. Words can't really do it justice.

It's a subtle, and wonderous thing. It would be foolish not to respect it.

Re: Childless relationships
June 11, 2013, 07:07:02 PM
Apparently research shows that the role of the environment is almost negligible in the development of children.

Link?

http://www.isteve.com/nurture.htm

Somebody open a window, we got some aspies burning their gears in here.

If you take Darwinism as telos, then of course childless relationships are FAIL.

Dont misunderstand. This is not the Darwinian position, but the position of tradition. Why does marriage exist as an institution? By definition, in principle, its purpose is procreation. That is the societal aspect of marriage, and it is fulfilled only by children. A childless marriage is a failure from the point of view of wider society`s interests, and this isnt a claim that requires any extraordinary proof. Just the social stigma attached to these unions should be clue enough. That said, this is entirely different from the personal aspect of marriage, the union between man and woman. This can transcend the societal aspect and in fact affirms it by being the exception.

Re: Childless relationships
June 12, 2013, 12:42:21 AM
I believe we both agree Trystero.

It is also feasible a glacial values change may occur as resources become more scarce, or perhaps having children will be the new "overweight" or "ripped abz": a highly situated value based on relative difficulty of obtaining such a state because of current environmental/cultural conditions.

Frankly we are considering having one genetic, adopting others, but in our mid-30s. Any later and my sperm or her ova will likely produce Corky St. Grishnack.

Re: Childless relationships
June 12, 2013, 02:29:41 AM

Love = life as such, from a higher, less ego-driven perspective.



let's celebrate it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aJFSpkxjtY

Re: Childless relationships
June 14, 2013, 12:34:20 AM
Love can give you the feeling of genetic immortality, can it work as a substitute for god? All we look for in life is the feeling of being genetically viable/immortal
The only problem is maintaining it as you age

Re: Childless relationships
June 14, 2013, 12:11:26 PM
Love can give you the feeling of genetic immortality, can it work as a substitute for god?

Not only do I think it can't, I think this is one of the things that leads people astray from God. If you look at western secular humanism, it is obviously derived from Christian convictions of love and compassion (in overdrive, minus God). I think you are referring more to the love between a man and a women, or between parents and children? I don't know if it could work for some individual, but overall its fair to say this doesn't work. Romantic and familial bonds haven't gone anywhere, but God is dead and the absence remains notable.

Re: Childless relationships
June 14, 2013, 05:27:10 PM
Love can give you the feeling of genetic immortality, can it work as a substitute for god?

Not only do I think it can't, I think this is one of the things that leads people astray from God. If you look at western secular humanism, it is obviously derived from Christian convictions of love and compassion (in overdrive, minus God). I think you are referring more to the love between a man and a women, or between parents and children? I don't know if it could work for some individual, but overall its fair to say this doesn't work. Romantic and familial bonds haven't gone anywhere, but God is dead and the absence remains notable.

the love between man and woman.
I think love is mostly religious, or without god it should take an Ecclesiastes level understanding of death to really be in love.
love is some kind of combination of sexual attraction and awareness of the other person's mortality as well as your own.

Re: Childless relationships
June 15, 2013, 01:10:22 AM
Trystero:

F/N-F/N-F-F-?

I can posit that overall this does indeed work. If it didn't relationships and families would as a rule of thumb [permitting exceptions] deteriorate over time. This isn't something we see on a macro level, and I can bring either specific examples or archetypes/tropes to bear as witness, as could you.

Diesel:

F-?-?-T-?

At the species level, I'm certain love plays a role via identity in mortality. Perhaps love is a side-effect of this cause. At the individual level however I am certain knowing my wife and family will die doesn't make me appreciate them any more or less.

An interesting question for you, as you are Christian: In heaven, when all perfected souls are immortal, will there be love? This assumes souls will retain identity, which is safe if we take Jesus's resurrection as a prototype.