2009/3/11 ss <[email protected]> > On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote: > > As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised > > in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies > > marriage, or even traditional family. > > It does not, but the only known method so far is the family unit, with > monogamy for the female in most societies. Nobody can argue that nothing > else > will work, but nothing else seems to have been thrown up as a solution in > thousands of years of human history. If you know something different, I > would > like to know too. > > If one were to combine human potential and human curiosity along with > rigorous > science, then one would have to have an ongoing prospective research study > to > see whether any other model is as good or better. The only problem is that > the timescales to "prove" or "disprove" anything are so large that reseacrh > becomes impractical. Perhaps time will tell if there is any other method. > > Until then - I will continue to hold the conservative viewpoint that what > seems to have worked so far might possibly be the best bet until someone > else > does the experimentation and figures out that something else is equally > good > or better. > > shiv > > monogamy and the control of women's sexuality in general, are only necessary when patrilineal private property is the norm. all communal forms are, therefore, viable alternatives.
- Ingrid
