From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 11:40:11 MST
On 12/10/01 8:29 AM, "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> The reasoning process is something like this. My first priority is
> to be the director of "my own person". My second is to try and be
> fair or balanced. Others imposing fidelity rules upon me would
> violate the first priority. To fullfill the second priority I
> must be reciprocal. The paternity testing idea is a rational
> corral around what is prumably a genetic drive that males should
> have not to devote resources to offspring they are unrelated to.
> Some of the other issues raised, like "time faithfullness", also
> fall under the first/second priority rules.
This is essentially my basic operating rules, which seem very reasoned and
fair to me as well. However, I've noticed that this basic reasoning doesn't
fly very well with a lot of potential partners, even at an abstract level.
"Logical and reasonable" isn't a good reason for many people <sigh>.
> That doesn't mean that one cannot develop a monogamous relationship
> (a tip of the hat to Spike) through voluntary sign-up but there would
> have to be opt-out clauses (for me). The structure of most common contracts
> (and therefore most meme sets other humans possess), e.g. marriage,
> tends to be all or nothing. I've yet to find someone with whom one
> can define how this aspect of a relationship should be structured
> based on reason rather than emotion.
The most satisfying development in my personal relationships has been the
adoption of a policy of explicitly agreeing to the basic terms (and
limitations) of the relationship at the beginning. Any terminal
incompatibility will be readily obvious by doing so, and it helps eliminate
miscommunication due to differing basic, and frequently unstated,
assumptions. Unfortunately, most people don't REALLY seem to want to
explicitly state the terms and conditions of a relationship. I've only met
one or two women that seem capable of actually addressing and living up to a
relationship based on explicit terms, all of whom have been anomalously
reasoned and rational about everything in general.
On my personal rant issue of marriage specifically, the contents and
administration of marriage contracts would be utterly unacceptable if
applied to business in most States. Yet the State basically defines those
rules by fiat, giving the individual little leeway in tailoring their
specific "relationship contract" to meet there specific needs and desires.
In theory one could create a custom legal surrogate for State defined
marriage, but it would take a lot more effort. I would prefer to eliminate
marriage as a special statutory contract altogether, as even if you accept
the basic premises of the statutory forms, the current incarnations are
generally sub-optimal for most people. Eliminating the "one size fits all"
marriage contract would probably go a long way towards reducing the divorce
rate. For starters, I think many people in today's western society would be
better served by time limited contracts (none of this "in perpetuity" crap)
that have to be renewed, renegotiated, or simply dropped on regular
intervals. This would force the contracts to have proper exit/termination
clauses, the general lack of which is why divorce courts are so busy these
days.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:26 MST