Has no fault divorce outlived its initial purpose?

[American Legionaries]

That famous saying, "it takes a village to be a family".

The state is not a village.

This is an extremely self absorbed and selfish perspective.

My neighbor isn't party to my marriage, neither is my family, or my wife's family, or some random ass voter that happens to live in the same arbitrarily defined political division as I do.

[American Legionaries]

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

So if it takes a village to raise a child, but not to get married, does that not come back to the point raised earlier in this thread about incentivizing intentional pregnancies that would make it "society's business" whether or not he leaves?

It doesn't take a village to raise a child either.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

So if it takes a village to raise a child, but not to get married, does that not come back to the point raised earlier in this thread about incentivizing intentional pregnancies that would make it "society's business" whether or not he leaves?

It doesn't take a village to raise a child either.

We're the evolutionary cousins of bonobos, who had massive group orgies without DNA tests. They couldn't possibly have known who the father is. Sure, people don't like being compared to bonobos, but at the end of the day these same people look at an overweight serial adulterer like Trump and feel more inclined to insult his weight than his adultery. So the comparison is valid after all.

If it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it only takes a mother.

In which case, there's no sense complaining about single mothers.

[American Legionaries]

It doesn't take a village to raise a child either.

We're the evolutionary cousins of bonobos, who had massive group orgies without DNA tests. They couldn't possibly have known who the father is. Sure, people don't like being compared to bonobos, but at the end of the day these same people look at an overweight serial adulterer like Trump and feel more inclined to insult his weight than his adultery. So the comparison is valid after all.

If it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it only takes a mother.

In which case, there's no sense complaining about single mothers.

"If it's not eight dozen, it's one!" There are numbers between those, y'know.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

We're the evolutionary cousins of bonobos, who had massive group orgies without DNA tests. They couldn't possibly have known who the father is. Sure, people don't like being compared to bonobos, but at the end of the day these same people look at an overweight serial adulterer like Trump and feel more inclined to insult his weight than his adultery. So the comparison is valid after all.

If it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it only takes a mother.

In which case, there's no sense complaining about single mothers.

"If it's not eight dozen, it's one!" There are numbers between those, y'know.

What's that "number", then, and what's your reason for believing it's that number?

[Adamede]

"If it's not eight dozen, it's one!" There are numbers between those, y'know.

What's that "number", then, and what's your reason for believing it's that number?

However many people the parents decide to make central to the child's raising and life.

[American Legionaries]

What's that "number", then, and what's your reason for believing it's that number?

However many people the parents decide to make central to the child's raising and life.

Basically this. So, 2(+), I guess.

[Neutraligon]

However many people the parents decide to make central to the child's raising and life.

Basically this. So, 2(+), I guess.

I would say 1+ since not every family has both parents taking an active role. That said, teachers often act in the role of parents for large parts of the day, particularly in early childhood.

[Risottia]

people’s romantic relationships are society’s business.

Sounds like something a peeping tom would say.

[Adamede]

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

So if it takes a village to raise a child, but not to get married, does that not come back to the point raised earlier in this thread about incentivizing intentional pregnancies that would make it "society's business" whether or not he leaves?

Divorces not being easy to get never stopped men from abandoning their families before.

[American Legionaries]

Basically this. So, 2(+), I guess.

I would say 1+ since not every family has both parents taking an active role. That said, teachers often act in the role of parents for large parts of the day, particularly in early childhood.

Not every family has active input from both parents, but I'd say being raised solely by a single person is less than ideal. Two people, be it two parents, or a parent and grandparent, or whatever create a very different dynamic that I think has positive benefits.

[Saiwania]

We're the evolutionary cousins of bonobos, who had massive group orgies without DNA tests.

Do those animals get venereal diseases? If so, we shouldn't imitate those lower animals if we at least, know better or have the capabilities to limit or avoid having those problems entirely, if it isn't treating it. We do, so we can't be exactly like animals in animal kingdom that're more filthy and undisciplined and if we want to be a species which is at a higher tier of development and status.

I favor avoidance over fixing damage that has been done, even if disease is sometimes inevitable. Because as of now, the prospects for treating many STDs are dimming or only becoming more hopeless. All cures for gonorrhea are only becoming less effective over time. There is the prospect that an evolving strain of it can't be treated. Monkeypox is the new latest crisis after COVID and supposedly has something to do with sex.

STD infection in the US is allegedly skyrocketing among the 20+ demographic up until early 30s. Same with some other major regions of the world.
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing ... /std-rates

Seeing how bad it is out there, is enough to get me to not care about lustful things anymore. There is perhaps no choice but for people to embrace celibacy, and to get tested before and after each time if they are going to sleep with someone. It is that, or take a gamble that one of the permanent conditions won't find you. Your body is a temple, but at the end of the day; is yours to neglect or use as you wish. You only have one to work with- before you die.

It's quite a terrible fate in my mind, to maybe become forever ruined, from making a mistake or going with the wrong person, if it isn't just being plain unlucky. Regardless of how infection happens, it is there to torment you until the end of your days- if there is no cure.

[Juristonia]

This is an extremely self absorbed and selfish perspective.

Dictating how/when/if two adults, whom you might not even know, are allowed to decide on the circumstances behind their split is an extremely self-absorbed and selfish perspective.

[Thepeopl]

"If it's not eight dozen, it's one!" There are numbers between those, y'know.

What's that "number", then, and what's your reason for believing it's that number?

Give or take 60 ppl?
You start with parent(1) And the other parent,(2)they have parents too (6), if divorced you could theoretically add 6 ppl extra, won't do that now)
Then extended family (12) and neighbours (16) and babysitters (18) and teachers (28) And friends (38), and classmates (58), librarian, police, shop owners, doctors, nurses etc. There you are, the "village" of the child.
Nowadays you should add idols, YouTube/ tv/ video games too.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Monkeypox is the new latest crisis after COVID and supposedly has something to do with sex.

Funny you should mention COVID, a disease that was spread by travel without requiring sexual contact. Almost as if the real problem is travel bringing these diseases into the community in the first place. If we required a 14-day quarantine as a precaution not just against COVID but against all future pandemics, then that would be a nuisance for exclusively "recreational" travel but a minor small fraction of the journey for someone who goes overseas on a work term. Who would probably have enough spare time during that work term to do as much exploring as a 2-week vacationer otherwise would anyway.

Perhaps it's recreational travel that should be taboo more than casual sex. And restrictions on the former would probably be more enforceable than those on the latter anyway.

In the meantime, there's always condoms. They're not perfect, but they don't break quite as easily people's willpower in the face of sexual temptation (see also; aforementioned risk of the baby trap not deterring teenage boys from sex) so the point is moot.

[Ethel mermania]

Monkeypox is the new latest crisis after COVID and supposedly has something to do with sex.

Funny you should mention COVID, a disease that was spread by travel without requiring sexual contact. Almost as if the real problem is travel bringing these diseases into the community in the first place. If we required a 14-day quarantine as a precaution not just against COVID but against all future pandemics, then that would be a nuisance for exclusively "recreational" travel but a minor small fraction of the journey for someone who goes overseas on a work term. Who would probably have enough spare time during that work term to do as much exploring as a 2-week vacationer otherwise would anyway.

Perhaps it's recreational travel that should be taboo more than casual sex. And restrictions on the former would probably be more enforceable than those on the latter anyway.

In the meantime, there's always condoms. They're not perfect, but they don't break quite as easily people's willpower in the face of sexual temptation (see also; aforementioned risk of the baby trap not deterring teenage boys from sex) so the point is moot.

All the international business trips I took were 6 weeks or less. For a one week trip you are going to idle an employee for two?

Aside from decimate the international tourist trade

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Funny you should mention COVID, a disease that was spread by travel without requiring sexual contact. Almost as if the real problem is travel bringing these diseases into the community in the first place. If we required a 14-day quarantine as a precaution not just against COVID but against all future pandemics, then that would be a nuisance for exclusively "recreational" travel but a minor small fraction of the journey for someone who goes overseas on a work term. Who would probably have enough spare time during that work term to do as much exploring as a 2-week vacationer otherwise would anyway.

Perhaps it's recreational travel that should be taboo more than casual sex. And restrictions on the former would probably be more enforceable than those on the latter anyway.

In the meantime, there's always condoms. They're not perfect, but they don't break quite as easily people's willpower in the face of sexual temptation (see also; aforementioned risk of the baby trap not deterring teenage boys from sex) so the point is moot.

All the international business trips I took were 6 weeks or less. For a one week trip you are going to idle an employee for two?

Aside from decimate the international tourist trade

As opposed to letting the "international tourist trade" decimate the rest of the economy all over again during the next travel-induced pandemic?

Not good enough. If the economy is this dependent on such short "international business trips" then this economy needs to change, one way or another. We can wait until after the next pandemic to do something about it, or nip this problem in the bud ahead of time.

You'd think society would learn.

[Ethel mermania]

All the international business trips I took were 6 weeks or less. For a one week trip you are going to idle an employee for two?

Aside from decimate the international tourist trade

As opposed to letting the "international tourist trade" decimate the rest of the economy all over again during the next travel-induced pandemic?

Not good enough. If the economy is this dependent on such short "international business trips" then this economy needs to change, one way or another. We can wait until after the next pandemic to do something about it, or nip this problem in the bud ahead of time.

You'd think society would learn.

Yes let's go back to the stone age and not have people travel more than 25 miles from their place of birth.

No more foreign goods as we have to block air and ship freighters crews from all ports.

[The Human Confederation]

Divorce is bad, but 2 people who no longer love each other staying together is worse in almost every case. We should aim towards decreasing the amount of people who marry people they don't love & the amount of marriages that fail rather than "decreasing divorce".

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

The idea that there always has to be someone at fault when things don't work out is bullshit.

Two people wanting to get divorced without giving all their assets to divorce lawyers in fees, is not something that is ever going to have a sell by date.

[Saiwania]

Perhaps it's recreational travel that should be taboo more than casual sex. And restrictions on the former would probably be more enforceable than those on the latter anyway.

In the meantime, there's always condoms. They're not perfect, but they don't break quite as easily people's willpower in the face of sexual temptation (see also; aforementioned risk of the baby trap not deterring teenage boys from sex) so the point is moot.

The main problem with condoms is that too many people don't use them or act as if its rocket science to use it without error or tearing when it isn't. There isn't much to be done if too many people willfully choose to throw caution to the wind and gamble. No, casual sex very much is the problem or primary cause for the spread of STDs of all types.

The best solution to prevent spread is to just require people to be tested and verified as being "clean" before any such activities occur, or for sex in general to be treated as seriously as marriage is. There is no practical way to do this however, so the best that can be hoped for is to be able to develop vaccines for every problem out there. But this isn't always possible or forthcoming.

We need new ways of fighting viruses and bacteria in general, maybe even developing our own engineered viruses and bacteriums that could conceivably cause no symptoms but still work behind the scenes to try to target and eradicate the germs that're causing problems towards extinction. This is all a very long way off as in: possibly never happening. But we can dream.

[Ifreann]

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

So if it takes a village to raise a child, but not to get married, does that not come back to the point raised earlier in this thread about incentivizing intentional pregnancies that would make it "society's business" whether or not he leaves?

That it takes a village to raise a child means that children are the responsibility of all of society, not only of their parents. It means that we are all contributing to the raising of the next generation, and thus we must all see that we do so well. It does not mean that society gets to dictate the terms of anyone's romantic relationships, to force anyone by any means to stay in a relationship they would otherwise leave because we imagine that to be best for their children.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

As opposed to letting the "international tourist trade" decimate the rest of the economy all over again during the next travel-induced pandemic?

Not good enough. If the economy is this dependent on such short "international business trips" then this economy needs to change, one way or another. We can wait until after the next pandemic to do something about it, or nip this problem in the bud ahead of time.

You'd think society would learn.

Yes let's go back to the stone age and not have people travel more than 25 miles from their place of birth.

No more foreign goods as we have to block air and ship freighters crews from all ports.

There's something between having international business trips (supposedly) being the heart of the entire economy and stopping people from going anywhere. Also, IIRC during the stone age people moved around more, except towards the end. Also last I checked air transport doesn't have to require close indoor contact between groups.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Perhaps it's recreational travel that should be taboo more than casual sex. And restrictions on the former would probably be more enforceable than those on the latter anyway.

In the meantime, there's always condoms. They're not perfect, but they don't break quite as easily people's willpower in the face of sexual temptation (see also; aforementioned risk of the baby trap not deterring teenage boys from sex) so the point is moot.

The main problem with condoms is that too many people don't use them or act as if its rocket science to use it without error or tearing when it isn't. There isn't much to be done if too many people willfully choose to throw caution to the wind and gamble. No, casual sex very much is the problem or primary cause for the spread of STDs of all types.

The best solution to prevent spread is to just require people to be tested and verified as being "clean" before any such activities occur, or for sex in general to be treated as seriously as marriage is. There is no practical way to do this however, so the best that can be hoped for is to be able to develop vaccines for every problem out there. But this isn't always possible or forthcoming.

We need new ways of fighting viruses and bacteria in general, maybe even developing our own engineered viruses and bacteriums that could conceivably cause no symptoms but still work behind the scenes to try to target and eradicate the germs that're causing problems towards extinction. This is all a very long way off as in: possibly never happening. But we can dream.

So... how do you propose we enforce monogamy, then?

Mind you, I don't think there's any sense doing so, as monogamy isn't for everyone, but you propose people be monogamous without specifying what the rest of us can do to get people there.

As opposed to letting the "international tourist trade" decimate the rest of the economy all over again during the next travel-induced pandemic?

Not good enough. If the economy is this dependent on such short "international business trips" then this economy needs to change, one way or another. We can wait until after the next pandemic to do something about it, or nip this problem in the bud ahead of time.

You'd think society would learn.

Yes let's go back to the stone age and not have people travel more than 25 miles from their place of birth.

No more foreign goods as we have to block air and ship freighters crews from all ports.

What, you can't have the freighter crew retreat to their bunkers while some sprinkler system disinfects the cargo before the seaport crew retrieves it?

That said, international trade is another thing our economies should rely less on if this pandemic was anything to go by.

So if it takes a village to raise a child, but not to get married, does that not come back to the point raised earlier in this thread about incentivizing intentional pregnancies that would make it "society's business" whether or not he leaves?

That it takes a village to raise a child means that children are the responsibility of all of society, not only of their parents. It means that we are all contributing to the raising of the next generation, and thus we must all see that we do so well. It does not mean that society gets to dictate the terms of anyone's romantic relationships, to force anyone by any means to stay in a relationship they would otherwise leave because we imagine that to be best for their children.

And yet, one of the most popular argument for child support law having no "gov't pays instead if she said before sex she wouldn't even keep the baby but changed her mind after the condom broke" exceptions is that the argument that it would undermine deterrence against fathers leaving their pregnant partners in the first place, which we are told is bad for the children involved. If we treat it as wrong to leave if he has children, but perfectly fine to leave if he doesn't, is that not an incentive for a woman who suspects her man is about to leave to get pregnant off him on purpose?

[Saiwania]

So... how do you propose we enforce monogamy, then?

Mind you, I don't think there's any sense doing so, as monogamy isn't for everyone, but you propose people be monogamous without specifying what the rest of us can do to get people there.

I only suggest that people are too careless with sex. You can technically have as many sexual partners as you want, provided you make sure both of you are verified as clean before and after any sex happens. Whoever comes back with bad testing results, sad to say- shouldn't have sex anymore if their condition is permanent, unless it's with another person with that same status.

Most people are serially monogamous at minimum, so I would say polygamy is in fact, not for anyone or should be abolished. All of the legal polygamy states tend to have internal dissent build up and those places eventually get overthrown or beset by civil war from the masses being tired of the upper class or elites hogging all of the women if most single men can't compete in those contexts, from not being as economically well resourced.

Harems in general are wrong. I don't see much benefit to such an arrangement if it's too much for any one person to juggle or is more often than not, just perversion. Or a cult leader thinking they're so special as to deserve more than other people as a power/status thing. It causes genetic bottlenecks to be more and not less of a problem.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... in-120234/