Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Relationships
Breeders and polyamourous people claim to be capable of an unlimited capacity of loving. I cannot judge, if this is true or not. But one thing is certain: On the behavioral level, the amount of loving attention, of affection as is expressed in gestures like hugs, that an individual can give in any unit of time, is limited and would thus be divided.
In the following, I am omitting the bonds with the family of origin.
In a symmetrical relationship between two childfree persons, who are each other's closest person, they give each other mutually 100 % of their expression of affection. They express to each other the same attributed value.
When a couple has one child, it still can be a symmetrical situation. The wife and the husband each share the affections between the wife and the child, so does the child between mother and father.
But there are asymmetrical situations, where one person A is involved with two persons B and C. As two examples, A can be a husband married to two wives, or A could be a person, either man or woman, who raises a child, but his or her new partner has no own children.
A gets 100 % of all available affection of B and of C, that makes 200 % of what he has to give. But his affections are split, so that B and C only receive 50 % each. In both cases, A receives 4 times more, than what that person gives to each of the partners. In economical terms, people are usually willing to pay as much as they attribute value to any commodity. Therefore, in such a constellation, As value would be 4 times the value of either B or C, and if they choose to enter the relationship, there is implicit consent of the relative value of each.
Something seems to be very dysfunctional, when a man and a woman enter a relationship, where both implicitly accept to be either 4 times as valuable or having only a quarter of the value of the other.
Except some weird Mormons, everybody in the western society accepts that monogamy is the only fair symmetrical relationship for men and women.
But not, when it comes to offspring. In my simplified example, I assumed the parent A sharing his affection equally between one child and the childless partner. But in reality, usually the child or children get the main part, and the parent usurps an affective value of 5 or 10 or even 20 times over the partner's value.
Only if both have children, they can create a symmetrical situation.
It is beyond my personal comprehension, how any childless or childfree person in his or her right mind would ever get involved with a breeder raising brats. But I know, that christian and mainstream breeders' society brainwashes people, that raising children is such a high goal, and that only monsters reject people, who have children. In this case, I am gladly considered a monster by all breeders.
I am getting tired of being contacted by breeders, who feel entitled to be entangles with their children and grandchildren, and who do not comprehend, that I would be a fool to ever share them with their brats.
I am convinced, even though I have no statistical evidence for this, that if there would be a situation of emergency, where a father could only safe one and would have to decide, whom, either his offspring or his partner, he would nearly always choose to save the bearer of his genes. Of course I could never know, if any specific man would really treat me so drastically as less important than his offspring, just the suspicion that he could, would impede me from ever trusting him.
Breeders and polyamourous people claim to be capable of an unlimited capacity of loving. I cannot judge, if this is true or not. But one thing is certain: On the behavioral level, the amount of loving attention, of affection as is expressed in gestures like hugs, that an individual can give in any unit of time, is limited and would thus be divided.
In the following, I am omitting the bonds with the family of origin.
In a symmetrical relationship between two childfree persons, who are each other's closest person, they give each other mutually 100 % of their expression of affection. They express to each other the same attributed value.
When a couple has one child, it still can be a symmetrical situation. The wife and the husband each share the affections between the wife and the child, so does the child between mother and father.
But there are asymmetrical situations, where one person A is involved with two persons B and C. As two examples, A can be a husband married to two wives, or A could be a person, either man or woman, who raises a child, but his or her new partner has no own children.
A gets 100 % of all available affection of B and of C, that makes 200 % of what he has to give. But his affections are split, so that B and C only receive 50 % each. In both cases, A receives 4 times more, than what that person gives to each of the partners. In economical terms, people are usually willing to pay as much as they attribute value to any commodity. Therefore, in such a constellation, As value would be 4 times the value of either B or C, and if they choose to enter the relationship, there is implicit consent of the relative value of each.
Something seems to be very dysfunctional, when a man and a woman enter a relationship, where both implicitly accept to be either 4 times as valuable or having only a quarter of the value of the other.
Except some weird Mormons, everybody in the western society accepts that monogamy is the only fair symmetrical relationship for men and women.
But not, when it comes to offspring. In my simplified example, I assumed the parent A sharing his affection equally between one child and the childless partner. But in reality, usually the child or children get the main part, and the parent usurps an affective value of 5 or 10 or even 20 times over the partner's value.
Only if both have children, they can create a symmetrical situation.
It is beyond my personal comprehension, how any childless or childfree person in his or her right mind would ever get involved with a breeder raising brats. But I know, that christian and mainstream breeders' society brainwashes people, that raising children is such a high goal, and that only monsters reject people, who have children. In this case, I am gladly considered a monster by all breeders.
I am getting tired of being contacted by breeders, who feel entitled to be entangles with their children and grandchildren, and who do not comprehend, that I would be a fool to ever share them with their brats.
I am convinced, even though I have no statistical evidence for this, that if there would be a situation of emergency, where a father could only safe one and would have to decide, whom, either his offspring or his partner, he would nearly always choose to save the bearer of his genes. Of course I could never know, if any specific man would really treat me so drastically as less important than his offspring, just the suspicion that he could, would impede me from ever trusting him.
