The de-centralised Family

[Angry Young Man]

My theory of how families should work is that a group of around 6-10 close friends, possibly with two or more lovers, but preferably bisexually polygamous (people at this point get indignant about jealousy, but in cultures where polygamy exists, there is no jealousy) would raise all ofg their offspring in that environment.
With this theory, I expect the antagonisms between husbands and wives, and parents and children, to be of much less magnitude, as there would be more role models for the children to look up to, rather than two people who may grow to hate eachother and only stay together for the kids, who would grow up thinking they would be the same.
Also, having multiple role models, there would be more open-mindedness.
The only problem I can foresee is incest. If all the different offspring are raised, even though mostly there will be no blood relation between most, there may, by fluke, be two siblings who develop feelings. This would mean that we need several De-Centralised families who meet.
I'd be interested to hear anyone else's view on how to practically abolish the nuclear family and hear what's wrong with mine...

[rouchambeau]

Post something relevant please. All this is is just a bunch of "intellectual" wankery. Focus on the real issues, and if this really is a real issue, then make a case for it rather than saying "this is my theory LOL".

[Ol' Dirty]

You can't abolish an idea, man. It's a dream anyway...

I personally believe in free love. Marriage, and the concept of the "traditional family" are really bad ideas, used by the church and state to bond people together. Personally, I don't feel like getting married (unless my future lover wants to). Love is a beast that doesn't cage up well, y'know?

[Rawthentic]

yeah comrade, I agree with you on not getting married. To me getting married is just a title that gives you special benefits as a couple. Well fuck that, I dont have to get married to love somebody. Simply the bond of love is stronger than the bond of marriage.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:35 PM
yeah comrade, I agree with you on not getting married. To me getting married is just a title that gives you special benefits as a couple. Well fuck that, I dont have to get married to love somebody. Simply the bond of love is stronger than the bond of marriage.
Hey hasta (whoa! that rhymes with rasta! :lol: ), will you not marry me?

:lol:

I didn't get a ring and everything...

:lol:

I agree. Who needs that bagggage? I'd rather chose to stick to a rock than be chained to a rock for my life. Besies most marriages end in divorce (in the US).

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I guess thats cool, even though Im not a Bob Marley or reggae fan. You were kidding about getting married right? Im not a homosexual, with all due respect to homosexuals, and I dont want to get married.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:23 PM
Yeah, I guess thats cool, even though Im not a Bob Marley or reggae fan. You were kidding about getting married right? Im not a homosexual, with all due respect to homosexuals, and I dont want to get married.
Yeah dude. There were LOL signs and everything. That and it's the web. :rolleyes:

And, I really don't care if you don't like BM or Reggae. The Rastafari movement goes beyond him and it. It's universal, reggae or no reggae.

[Rawthentic]

glad to hear

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:52 PM
glad to hear
Okay...

[Toothlessjoe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:41 PM
Love is a beast that doesn't cage up well, y'know?
So is lust, but people manage.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:29 PM
Post something relevant please. All this is is just a bunch of "intellectual" wankery. Focus on the real issues, and if this really is a real issue, then make a case for it rather than saying "this is my theory LOL".
Dude,w hat are you talking about? Engels and Marx even suggested this. It was ever more decentralized than love child suggested. I support Engels on this issue, Lovechild doesn't go far enough.

[KC]

rouchambeau is right. This thread is nothing more than theoretical mental masturbation.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 17 2006, 11:35 AM
rouchambeau is right. This thread is nothing more than theoretical mental masturbation.
I dindn't know brains could whack off.

:lol:

[Janus]

Well, there's certainly no reason why we have to keep the nuclear family. ONe interesting idea that I liked was that an entire community could be the family and help to raise a child together. Check out Walden 2 for more details if you're interested.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 17 2006, 04:24 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 17 2006, 04:24 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 09:29 PM
Post something relevant please. All this is is just a bunch of "intellectual" wankery. Focus on the real issues, and if this really is a real issue, then make a case for it rather than saying "this is my theory LOL".
Dude,w hat are you talking about? Engels and Marx even suggested this. It was ever more decentralized than love child suggested. I support Engels on this issue, Lovechild doesn't go far enough. [/b]
Can you recommend some reading please?
And what's more, where did I mention marriage. If I did not say so, I meant to, that the nuclear family is tyrannical and anti-democratic (by that I mean it is not democratic in the true sense). My idea of raising children in commune was that all of the parents (who need not have a biological tie, as they would all look after them) would have equal say in matters. I also forgot to mention a measure of home education in combination with free education to rid their minds of the brainwashing. That way, if people accepted that not all they learned at school was true, they would be more socially aware and that sometimes the state wouldn't always provide for them. This theory, obviously, is not post-revolution, but a preparation for it.

[Free Left]

Well, there's certainly no reason why we have to keep the nuclear family. ONe interesting idea that I liked was that an entire community could be the family and help to raise a child together. Check out Walden 2 for more details if you're interested.

The only problem I would see with that would be that perhaps there will be a struggle for the childs attention, love or time....Or perhaps I am just talking shite. <_<

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by lovechild of Kahlo and Trotsky+Jun 19 2006, 07:16 PM--> (lovechild of Kahlo and Trotsky @ Jun 19 2006, 07:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:24 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 09:29 PM
Post something relevant please. All this is is just a bunch of "intellectual" wankery. Focus on the real issues, and if this really is a real issue, then make a case for it rather than saying "this is my theory LOL".
Dude,w hat are you talking about? Engels and Marx even suggested this. It was ever more decentralized than love child suggested. I support Engels on this issue, Lovechild doesn&#39;t go far enough.
Can you recommend some reading please?
And what&#39;s more, where did I mention marriage. If I did not say so, I meant to, that the nuclear family is tyrannical and anti-democratic (by that I mean it is not democratic in the true sense). My idea of raising children in commune was that all of the parents (who need not have a biological tie, as they would all look after them) would have equal say in matters. I also forgot to mention a measure of home education in combination with free education to rid their minds of the brainwashing. That way, if people accepted that not all they learned at school was true, they would be more socially aware and that sometimes the state wouldn&#39;t always provide for them. This theory, obviously, is not post-revolution, but a preparation for it. [/b]
Definitely an interesting and important issue.
I read a fiction book which had a situation very similar to the one you describe; where several couples would get together to raise a smaller number of children. Only it was because overpopulation had caused the government (ick&#33;) to issue... a child allowance which limited a couple to one child. So to get around that they formed extended families.

Now if only I could remember the title&#33; :(

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 19 2006, 08:08 PM

Well, there&#39;s certainly no reason why we have to keep the nuclear family. ONe interesting idea that I liked was that an entire community could be the family and help to raise a child together. Check out Walden 2 for more details if you&#39;re interested.

The only problem I would see with that would be that perhaps there will be a struggle for the childs attention, love or time....Or perhaps I am just talking shite. <_<
There&#39;s that moreso in a Nuclear family with many kids. I&#39;ll guess you&#39;reeither the oldest or youngest or an only child. The middle child often feels left out.
The solution is that two people in the community would have a child, and then another two do, so there are equal numbers of parents and children.

[Delta]

Read and learn
Focus on the Family (http://www.family.org/)





JUST KIDDING&#33; :lol:

[Janus]

The only problem I would see with that would be that perhaps there will be a struggle for the childs attention, love or time
You mean like people battling each other for the child&#39;s love? I don&#39;t really see that happening but I suppose that it&#39;s possible. Of course the biological parents are still in the child&#39;s life but the child will be exposed to many different people, ideas, and relationships which will promote a healthy life.