Sex and Partnership

>> Huh? Wait...what? People actually think that Life partner and romantic partner have to always be the same thing?! <<

Most people do, although not everyone does. Society leans heavily in that direction.

>> Err.. what Sherlock Holmes and Watson? What about Bromances, Besties and BFF's? Ok we might not call such relationships life partners, <<

Not all close relationships are life partnerships, and that's okay. I tend to think of Holmes and Watson as life partners, but in canon Watson went and married a woman ... who may or may not have been a major part of his life, it's kind of vague. Anyhow, these are the kinds of relationships that I wish would get more respect than than do.

>> and they sure doesn't have any legal standing... but you know, maybe they should! They function the same way in many cases, they can outlast marriages and other sexual relationships [although not always, a lot of people seem to think they're mutually exclusive... which should be a hint really.] <<

I think legal recognition would be a good option to have for nonsexual permanent relationships. As it is, some people simply marry for the privileges it grants, and choose not to have sex anyhow.

Basically my opinion is this:

A) Society has a vested interest in knowing who moves through life as a social unit for such major purposes as living together, buying cars, paying taxes, raising children; and minor purposes such as attending events together, taking care of each other on sick days, etc. If true, then ALL such relationships should be acknowledged equally for practical reasons, because the negative consequences of ignoring those relationships will happen whether the relationship is morally approved or not.

OR

B) Society has no practical grounds for knowing those things about anyone's personal life and should butt out of relationships altogether. If it is feasible for ANYONE'S relationship to be ignored, then EVERYONE'S relationship should be ignored, because otherwise that's just discrimination which is wrong and dysfunctional.

I favor A but would tolerate B. What I will not tolerate is praising some relationships while shitting on equivalent ones just because you don't like someone's choices.

If children were truly the primary concern, then the framework would be based on childbearing not just sexual relationships. Not to mention all the other reasons for marriage, because in some times/places it was primarily about politics or property -- forging alliances in essence -- for which children were sometimes but not always desired.

In contemporary America -- and some other cultures -- procreation and marriage overlap less and less. Or people get married and divorce soon. It's not a very effective security measure anymore.

>> I suspect sexual connections have traditionally been privileged because they were likely to lead to children/inheritance issues. <<

To some extent that's true, but there have been broad swaths where marriage was more about alliances and often contracted between people who either couldn't have children together or weren't interested in the sex.

>> This is no longer the case, of course, in societies with relatively reliable birth control (and access to it); if you want to call our birth control methods reliable when they have so many side effects, and if you want to call access to it reliable when that seems spotty at best. <<

The birth control we have now is tremendously more reliable than what was available historically, and quite a lot of people use it for responsible family planning. I do wish that it was freely available to everyone who wanted it.

>> Given that, I think it's a rational idea for societies to say 'hey, you know, sex has implications for a third person who is helpless for the first 15 years of their life. Let's beat that into people's heads so they don't do it irresponsibly.' <<

I think that's a rational premise. I don't think that's working, and while it appears as the focus of some forms of marriage, it doesn't with the prevailing modern forms. There's not much that's based exclusively on childbearing; the focus is really more on a commitment of sexual convenience. Given that far more people preach monogamy than practice it, that's a problem because it leaves a lot of children unprotected. And by now even marriage isn't providing much security for adults or children. One size fits ... not very many.

>> I agree that the system is breaking down. <<

:(

>> I just don't know what to replace it with <<

I'm not sure either.

However, I see some promise with intentional community, which seems to attract people starving for human connections in an increasingly ephemeral world. Community ties have crumbled as much as family ties, but in some ways are quicker and easier to rebuild because it's possible to make progress with friendship rather than leaning so much on long-term sexual intimacy.

Family of choice is something else people are trying, but without the social infrastructure to support it, that's difficult to achieve. Being family isn't easy; when you have to swim upstream, it's almost impossible.

>> that will also have the gut-level understanding that if no one is producing (and supporting those who are producing) another generation of human beings, then we're going to fail the species. <<

I'm not concerned about the species dying out on those grounds. There are billions. Humans are one of the least-concern species on Earth.

I am concerned that climate change may make the planet uninhabitable, that pollutants and other factors are wrecking health and fertility, and that the food and water supply is often dubious.

I'm concerned about shredding ties on a social level because that leads to less functional societies, more misery, more conflict, and that may spiral up into levels of malfunction that could wipe out the species.

Far more likely is that we'd simply shatter the civilization we have now, and never get it back.

>> I'd kind of rather not have humanity peter out and die on this planet without booming out and going on to explore the galaxy, maybe move on to greater understanding and more awesome opportunities. <<

I agree.

I've noticed that I'm writing more about families and communities as time goes on. I still dream about space exploration, but a lot of what I fantasize about is everyday survival like food, home, and having people around to help each other when times get rough. That seems to resonate with a lot of folks, because it's a very popular topic with my audience. I figure maybe if I can show people the possibilities, they'll try to connect with each other more.

>> Sexual attraction tends to be more intense, and comes on more suddenly, than friendship. <<

Often, though not always, true.

>> But I've always maintained that the only sound basis for a lasting relationship is friendship. <<

I agree. Lust tends to burn out. If there's nothing else to hold the relationship together, it falls apart. This is happening a lot.