Michael Dawson writes:
> You seem to have almost argued yourself over to my position here: Economic
realities rob U.S. parents of time with their kids. Of course, high quality emotional connection is what it's all about. The question is what blocks so many people from having that? Answer: Long work week + women's poverty from divorce + mass TV addiction. All economically-driven factors.
Another factor is the cult of individualism: every member of the family has to have their own tv, stereo, computer, etc., etc. In my family we made do with one tv that we watched together. We would negotiate (communicate) over what was watched. Heck, we even played computer games together. When I wanted to go the library we all went. When my brother needed to go to therapy (he has cerebral palsy) we all went. There was no attempt to have everybody do their own thing. This time spent together in collective rather than individual pursuits is what is crucial.
> Personally, I find that idea repulsive and contrary to basic Freudian needs between lovers.
Before I comment, it would help if you could define "basic Freudian needs betwen lovers." In a larger context, how valuable is Freud's work at this point? Does anyone take him seriously?
> Maybe I'm a pervert, but I think open relationships are repulsive to the vast majority, and for pretty practical reasons.
That doesn't make you a pervert; it makes you conventional-minded. I know of many open relationships (gay, lesbian and straight) that are happy and where the children are well-adjusted socially and sexually. People are offended not for practical reasons (what is impractical abojut polyamory?), but because of their own bias/hatred. People are quick to label impractical what they cannot themselves achieve.
> People aren't as dumb in this area as you family reformers think they are.
I do not think they are dumb. They are prejudiced.
Brian Dauth Queer Budhist Resister