You could imagine further scenarios where the two original parents stay together in a loving relationship prioritizing the children, the only difference being that the parents don't restrict eachother from having additional romantic/sexual involvement with other people. This could have positive or negative effects on the children, but those effects would be a result of the way the parents behave and prioritize, regardless of whether they place default restrictions on eachothers romantic/sexual interests.
A parent prioritizing a (additional) romantic relationship over their children is no more harmful than a parent prioritizing their friends over their children. The issue is the way they're prioritizing. When I defend polyamory I'm not defending loosening You familial bonds.
Whether or not parents prioritize their children's needs seems to be the main important distinction. You offer an example where the children weren't prioritized. I think your example exemplifies monogamous attitudes, you disagree, but I think we agree that not prioritizing children is the issue.
I can also imagine an infinite and perfectly frictionless plane where objects once put into motion continue in straight line trajectories until acted upon by other forces.
We’re not circle heads on stick bodies. We have an evolutionary and biological history that gives us all kinds of built-in natural urges/chemical tugs/biological imperatives. You have a natural urge to defend *your* specific children and anything that threatens that gives you a natural urge to behave in a hostile manner.
Wrote this above, yes I can imagine finding examples fairly easily where I would say “this seems okay.” And also at the same time, in no way contradictory to that, think it’s a worse system that doesn’t scale and people for whom it worked out had it work out by accident.
You could imagine further scenarios where the two original parents stay together in a loving relationship prioritizing the children, the only difference being that the parents don't restrict eachother from having additional romantic/sexual involvement with other people. This could have positive or negative effects on the children, but those effects would be a result of the way the parents behave and prioritize, regardless of whether they place default restrictions on eachothers romantic/sexual interests.
A parent prioritizing a (additional) romantic relationship over their children is no more harmful than a parent prioritizing their friends over their children. The issue is the way they're prioritizing. When I defend polyamory I'm not defending loosening You familial bonds.
Whether or not parents prioritize their children's needs seems to be the main important distinction. You offer an example where the children weren't prioritized. I think your example exemplifies monogamous attitudes, you disagree, but I think we agree that not prioritizing children is the issue.
Imagine yes.
I can also imagine an infinite and perfectly frictionless plane where objects once put into motion continue in straight line trajectories until acted upon by other forces.
We’re not circle heads on stick bodies. We have an evolutionary and biological history that gives us all kinds of built-in natural urges/chemical tugs/biological imperatives. You have a natural urge to defend *your* specific children and anything that threatens that gives you a natural urge to behave in a hostile manner.
Wrote this above, yes I can imagine finding examples fairly easily where I would say “this seems okay.” And also at the same time, in no way contradictory to that, think it’s a worse system that doesn’t scale and people for whom it worked out had it work out by accident.