[p2p-research] Intelligent People Have "Unnatural" Preferences And Values That Are Novel In...

[Michel Bauwens]

who exactly in the West can still be married against their will? and where's
the power of the Catholic Church?

so essentially, for most of us, monogamy is an expression of free will,

staying together in the absense of love of course still exists, but probably
as a complex social calculation involving many factors ...

reading the many messages that social players send out through advertising
etc... i.e. permanent sexual stimulation, you would rather think that
contemporary capitalism favours multiple impermanent relationships, and that
monogamy is a conscious counterchoice

Michel




On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:50 AM, j.martin.pedersen <
m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 03/03/10 17:27, Kevin Carson wrote:
> > On 3/2/10, j.martin.pedersen <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> also, for what it is worth - monogamy, in Euro-American culture, is in
> >> great part an aspect of an authoritarian institution called the
> >> christian church...
> >
> > The general value may be associated with Christianity, but at least in
> > the U.S.  divorce rates tend to be much higher in stereotypical "Red
> > States" where authoritarian strains of fundamentalist Christianity are
> > more common, whereas marriages on average are more stable in parts of
> > the country where liberal protestantism predominates.
>
> That's the point: monogamy is an authoritarian value imposed upon people
> through oppressive institutions - the more you are subjecting yourself
> to them, the bigger the strain on your relationship. If you choose to
> live monogamously out of your OWN FREE WILL, the pressure decreases. And
> vice versa. It is not as if those Christians fundamentalists made the
> church and its values originally. They just live in it - and of course
> they fail more than others, because they try to live by insane and
> insane-making rules to a degree that others do not.
>
> Don't let the tail wag the dog!
>
> > That's one of those paradoxes of American politics that drive the Tea
> > Party folks crazy.
>
> This isn't a paradox at all: it confirms the point exactly.
>
> |  Another is that Red States, whose populations are
> > much more likely to look down on "welfare queens" and sing the praises
> > of "rugged individualism" and "free enterprise," tend to be net tax
> > consumers with more working poor on welfare, and to have economies
> > heavily reliant on federal military bases or extractive industries
> > with privileged access to federal land.
>
> I know nothing about this, really, but one might suggest that being
> dependent upon an oppressive force will turn you against that force and
> its mechanisms. Not exactly rocket science?!?!?!
>
> - m
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100304/4fc4d65b/attachment-0001.html>