SOC 3321 Idaho State University Cohabitation & Polyamory Discussion

User Generated

EvpxlTerra

Humanities

SOC 3321

Idaho State University

SOC

Description

Write a solid paragraph of about 250 words for your post. Your post must demonstrate critical thinking about families pondering materials and information from that week.

Think about how you can contribute some substantive arguments to the discussion that goes beyond what has been already said and stated in the class materials - contextualizing and critically evaluating the issues. Consider questions like: Why are we seeing particular patterns? What could be contributing to the issues beyond the information presented in the readings and videos? What are the consequences of the observed patterns/phenomena? What does it mean for particular forms or groups of families? What does this mean for certain groups in our society? Can something be done about this - could policies or programs improve the issues? What did the authors (readings, videos) fail to consider? Etc.,

Questions like these demonstrate critical thinking and will most definitively add substance to your posts.

Your post should be clear and well thought out.

You can use examples from your personal experience to illustrate your thoughts but do not just recount things you heard or experienced, rather apply those experiences to make your arguments.

Responses must also be substantive. Please do not just repeat what someone else stated, just cheer on your fellow students, or just add a personal anecdote. Do all of the above if you wish but add some substantive arguments to gain maximum points.

Points

1. Forum post. Thoughts about materials of the week

- Post is substantive, informed, and critical4 Points

- Post is well thought out and clear 2 Points

2. Respond with a substantive statement to two students in class 4 Points

Total possible points 10 points

THIS WEEKS MATERIALS LINKS:

Everything You Want to Know About Living Together Before Marriage (But Are Too Afraid To Ask) | HuffPost Life

He's Just Not That Into You - Jennifer Aniston & Ben Affleck - YouTube

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Are we making the family too special for our own good? 1 of 6 https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t... Two women philosophers think so, despite evidence to the contrary. Carolyn Moynihan | May 19 2017 | 12 The family has had a privileged place in civilisation, with laws to protect it (governing marriage, for example) and, in modern societies, often policies to support it financially (tax breaks or child benefits). Why? Because the family is the little community in which children are born and nurtured and prepared for citizenship – with the help of other institutions. It is a law of nature that the adults of a species look 5/21/17, 10:57 PM Are we making the family too special for our own good? 2 of 6 https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t... after their own young, and most human societies want them to do it well, not only for the sake of the individuals concerned, but because it is better for society at large. Does that mean that the nuclear family is sacrosanct? That it is beyond criticism or change? That it must be kept together at all costs, even the safety of its weaker members? Or that people in other family structures do not deserve the protection and support of the state? Of course not. And yet there are people today who see the family consisting of a married man and woman with the children they generate, rational and generally successful though it is, as an ideal that threatens equality and diversity in the domestic sphere. Among them are two Scandinavian philosophers writing in the Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics this month. They examine the “special status” accorded the nuclear family and find that it is not consistent with “contemporary Western values” relating to women and children. This alleged power of the nuclear family model is surprising. Divorce, cohabitation, sole parenthood and same-sex marriage have produced a family landscape that reflects quite well the way we value women and children now, one would have thought. We are constantly told that “families come in many forms” and this “diversity” is celebrated at the highest levels. Daniela Cutas and Anna Smajdor, however, are concerned with the remaining influence of the nuclear family as a social norm, “the family” as opposed to simply “families”. They say this structure is treated as though it has a “moral status” or value over and above that of its 5/21/17, 10:57 PM Are we making the family too special for our own good? 3 of 6 https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t... individual members, and even in conflict with their individual moral status and interests. Practically speaking, this means that the traditional idea of the family still shapes laws and policies in ways that are harmful to some individuals, especially women and children. For this reason the family may need to lose its special status, the philosophers argue. But is it true that the nuclear family (still) has a status that obliges governments to protect it? And even if it does, how harmful is this to individual members compared with other domestic arrangements that are already approved or tolerated and supported socially, or yet others that might be, in a total free for all? Certainly, the nuclear family is the model taken for granted in international law. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Men and women of full age … have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” The same article states: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Cutas and Smajdor note the appeal to “naturalness” that underpins the UN definition and the belief that this natural family structure will be better for its members, especially children – assumptions shaping laws about the family throughout the West. They see various harms in this. Fertility treatment is geared to health of the (nuclear) family unit not individuals. Infertility is officially defined in terms of failure to conceive after a period of regular sexual intercourse. This limits access to “treatments” such as IVF and 5/21/17, 10:57 PM Are we making the family too special for our own good? 4 of 6 https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t... surrogacy for same-sex couples and single women in some countries (Turkey, Italy and India, for example), although others, such as Sweden and the UK have loosened their criteria. The UK, the authors note approvingly, no longer requires that “a child’s need for a father” be considered, but only “need of that child for supportive parenting”. Nevertheless they complain that, “Biological malfunctions, such as blocked fallopian tubes and azoospermia, are irrelevant here. Rather, it is the deficit in the family (lack of offspring) that is addressed by medical treatment. Infertility is the failure to achieve the nuclear family through sexual intercourse, independently of any associated biological or medical problem.” How relevant, though, are blocked fallopian tubes or azoospermia to someone who is not trying to procreate? How would they even know they had such a condition? Surely it is fair to offer fertility treatments to those who have a known and immediate need. The family bias ignores evidence that family form is not what determines the best environment for children. “Empirical research suggests that what matters most for children’s well-being is the quality of relationships within the family and the support that the family receives, rather than family form, whether it is nuclear, whether the parents are married to each other, or the number of parents.” 5/21/17, 10:57 PM Are we making the family too special for our own good? 5 of 6 https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t... Yet there is also evidence that unmarried parents are more likely to split up than the married by the time a child is 12, thus contributing to instability (including future unions and separations) in children lives, and this instability is even more likely for the children of single mothers, along with the risks of child abuse by the mother as well as her partner/s. Is it better to impose these risks on children than to gear social efforts towards keeping their parents together? The drive to preserve the nuclear family puts women at risk. The authors cite reports of policies that “often showed greater concern for the maintenance of a two-parent family than for the safety of the mother and her children.” Contact (by the separated father) with children was allowed even where there were “convictions or explicit reports of child abuse or domestic violence.” The vulnerability of women to violence was treated as a marginal issue. Frankly, this does not sound like the way family agencies act in most Western countries today. But in any case, US data shows that children of divorced and never-married parents are far more likely to have been exposed to domestic violence than children in married two-parent families. It is obvious, however, that the authors are convinced the nuclear or traditional family has been oppressive for women and children for most of history and that it continues to be so for many today. This is because its privileged status and protection by authorities means “the family falls under the authority of their most powerful members” – in other words, the patriarchal male. Historically, women and children were not regarded as having full moral status, but this has changed: women and children are now seen as equal. 5/21/17, 10:57 PM Are we making the family too special for our own good? 6 of 6 https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/are-we-making-the-family-t... However, that change will not yield all its benefits for them as long as society enshrines “the (nuclear) family” as an ideal and norm. So the philosophers reason, despite the fact that they both work in countries (Sweden and Norway) where more than 50 percent of children are already born to unmarried (cohabiting or single) mothers, and which rank highly for gender equality. Is it safer for women in Sweden now? Apparently not. In Norway intimate partner violence is above the EU average. A Spanish-Swedish team of researchers last year called this mismatch between the high status of women and high rates of IPV “the Nordic paradox” – a subject on which they found a surprising lack of research. The decline of marriage hasn’t done much for the mental health of young Scandinavians either. Such indicators suggest that the real problem with the nuclear family today is not that it is valued too much but that it is valued too little, and that the concerns of Cutas and Smajdor are more theoretical than real. Politicians don't take much notice of theories, but their policy advisors do. It is to be hoped that the prejudice against “the family” evident in the paper discussed here does not contribute to a further decline in social support for the little communities that both nature and experience point to as the conditions for personal wellbeing and the foundation of a healthy society. Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet. 5/21/17, 10:57 PM Polyamory: Beyond the confines of monogamous love Monogamy is still very much the norm in today’s societies, but different types of romantic relationships are gaining ground. For this Spotlight feature, we have spoken to some polyamorous people and asked: What is fact and what is fiction about polyamorous relationships? What is polyamory, really? In this Spotlight feature, we investigate. Written by Maria Cohut, Ph.D. on July 26, 2019 — Fact checked by Gianna D'Emilio Medical News Today https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325880#Jealousy-and-time-management In most societies around the world, people dream of finding “the one” and forming a committed relationship with that one person — for life. Movies and books are filled with “happily ever after” stories involving soulmates that were simply “made for each other.” Yet, over the past few decades, more and more people have been speaking out, saying that monogamy is not for them. According to recent studies, approximately 4–5% of all adults in the United States have consensual nonmonogamous relationships. One form of nonmonogamous practice that has been attracting attention in the media is polyamory. But what is polyamory, really, and how does it differ from other nonmonogamous practices? Is it a dream come true, a way of “having your cake and eating it, too,” as the saying goes? Or, is being in a polyamorous relationship really not that different from being in any other kind of relationship? For this Spotlight feature, we have spoken to four polyamorous people, asking them about polyamory facts and misconceptions and about how this lifestyle works for them. ‘The hardest question’ When speaking to polyamorous people about how they would define polyamory, the same reaction came up over and over again. “It’s probably the hardest [question] to answer,” one interviewee, Ella, said. Another, Sebastian, exclaimed, “quite a hard question, to be honest!” The difficulty comes from the fact that polyamorous relationships can take various forms. They can be hierarchical, with one partner being the “primary” partner, or nonhierarchical, in which all partners have equal standing. Moreover, a person could be in separate relationships with different partners or in a relationship in which all or several partners are also romantically engaged with each other. Yet, there is usually a common theme, when it comes to defining the notion of polyamory. Christian Klesse, Ph.D., a researcher and lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, in the United Kingdom, specializes in sexualities. Klesse explains this conundrum in a paper that features in the journal Sexualities. “Polyamory it is a contested term. Its concrete meanings have been an issue of ongoing debate,” Klesse writes. However, he continues, “Love is central to the discourses on polyamory, [which] is clearly revealed in an analysis of the etymological roots of the term.” Indeed, the word “polyamory” comes from the Greek root “poly,” meaning “many,” and the Latin root “amor,” meaning “love.” Quite literally, it means “many loves” — being romantically involved with multiple people at the same time. Despite noting how hard it was to define polyamory, this was actually what all the polyamorous people who spoke with us said: Polyamory is about spreading the love. “It’s a lifestyle where, essentially, I am not confined to the things that everyone else is confined [to] in relationships. The way that I see it […] is that you have multiple loving relationships with multiple people at the same time,” said Ella. “For me, it’s about doing stuff that I think a lot of people want to do anyway, but it’s a kind of honest and ethical way of doing so,” Mary told us. At the moment, she said, she happens to only have one partner. But the framework of a polyamorous relationship would allow her to also become involved with other people: “Even though I do only have the one partner at the moment, I could have others, and that wouldn’t be a sign that there’s anything wrong with me. It would just be an opportunity to increase the amount of love and pleasure that you get in life.” It’s not (just) about the sex The polyamorous people who spoke with us also agreed on another issue: the main misconception that non-polyamorous individuals tend to have about this practice. “Many people mistake polyamorous relationships for open relationships,” Jim told us. So what’s the difference between the two, really? He explained: “An open relationship allows its partners to pursue nonserious sexual and romantic relationships with people outside the relationship. However, open relationships share with monogamous relationships the obligation to not pursue any serious romantic relationships with other people.” By contrast, polyamorous people often — though not always — start seeing different people with a view of pursuing a meaningful romantic relationship with them. Sex can be part of the deal, but it is not usually the focus. “People don’t really understand what [polyamory] means. […] A lot of people call it an ‘open relationship.’ A lot of people think that it’s just a [single] one-on-one emotional relationship with an open sexual element, which isn’t really true for [my polyamorous relationship] — that’s not how we do it,” Sebastian told us. Another common misconception is that polyamory is a creative form of cheating on a stable partner. Mary, who is in a relationship with a person who already had a romantic partner when he started seeing her, told us that she often encounters this stereotype. “Sometimes I’ll chat to people about [polyamory, and] even people I’m quite close to […] they’ll make little jokes like, ‘Oh, no wonder [your polyamorous partner] is having an affair.’ And it’s like… no, that’s not really it,” she told us. “No one is cheating,” Ella also said, when pointing out common misconceptions that she encounters about polyamory. “The idea is that we’re all open and honest and that we follow a moral code that [we agreed on within our relationship].” ‘The last person I would expect to do that’ Are all people “secretly” polyamorous, but just unwilling to admit that this is how they would prefer to lead their romantic lives? Mary thought not. She said, “Some people, I think, can get quite evangelical about [polyamory] and say, ‘Oh, everybody’s [polyamorous],’ and I think that’s not the case at all.” And yet, what kind of a person do you have to be in order to practice polyamory? And how do you get into it? Some of the individuals who spoke to Medical News Today said that they had known for years that their natural inclination was to be in love with several people at once. “I actually realized [I was polyamorous] very, very early on — I was 13, 14. But I didn’t have a framework […] or a concept for it until I was 21,” Ella told us. Mary, too, said that she had been interested in polyamory for years before she entered into her first polyamorous relationship. But others said that they had never considered that polyamory was an option for them until they just… accidentally fell into it. “Although I know that some people get something of a ‘eureka moment’ when they discover polyamory for themselves, that hasn’t been the case with me. I’m not sure why I’m polyamorous. It’s probably because many of my close friends are, which made me curious about it,” Jim told MNT. Something similar happened to Sebastian, who explained: “I met someone who was already involved with that [scene] […] so I kind of fell into the scene, really. As I started to do it, I realized it was completely normal to me, [and that] it felt quite natural.” He also noted that this came as a complete surprise to his friends, who had perceived him as being quite a conventional person: “My best friend [was] quite surprised. I think his exact words were: ‘Sebastian, you’re the last person I would expect to do that!'” Jealousy and time management Although people who practice polyamory may not have any magical superpowers, sometimes it may seem as if they do. Healthy polyamorous relationships are based on good time management skills and great communication, according to the people who spoke to MNT. Polyamory can involve a lot of tight scheduling, and this can be a challenge. For one, the partners in a polyamorous relationship have to be great at explaining what their expectations, needs, and limits are and at checking in emotionally with their partners at every step of the way. Different types of polyamorous relationships, therefore, come with different sets of rules, depending on the needs of the romantic partners. Ella also noted that, early on in her life as a polyamorous partner, she had to learn to fully understand where any negative emotions, such as jealousy, might come from. By doing so, she said, she came to understand that not all negative emotions were, in their essence, related to aspects of her relationship. Moreover, this allowed her to find better coping strategies for such emotions. “I’ve had to face anxiety and jealousy and whatever difficult feelings that might come with [knowing that my partner is on a date with someone else],” Ella told us. “I’ve experienced the fact that [my primary partner] has dated and has seen people, and I’ve had to confront the fact that I was home on my own while my boyfriend is out there seeing someone who they may or may not end up having sex with that night, ” she continued. Ella explained that she worked to understand what she was feeling in the moment and why she was feeling that way. She acknowledged: “I am someone who doesn’t like to be alone […] and I was noticing that that was the thing that I was getting stressed out about the most. [I realized] that this is not, in fact, related to polyamory. It’s not the fact that he’s seeing someone, it’s just the fact that I’m alone right now, and that’s something that I can fix.” Indeed, the issue of jealousy seemed to come up time and again for other polyamorous people, too. Mary told us that she had experienced jealousy when thinking about her partner being with someone else and that this is an emotion that she still sometimes reckons with. Sebastian, instead, told us that jealousy has not really been an issue for him because his partner is great at continually showing him that she cares about him and his feelings. As for time management, both Ella and Mary agreed that this can be one of the most challenging aspects of maintaining polyamorous relationships. Ella, in particular, noted that this could sometimes be a source of worry. Currently, she is in two separate relationships with two different polyamorous men, but her relationships are hierarchical: She has a primary and a secondary partner, which means, among other things, that she dedicates a set — and distinct — amount of time to each. While she said that this has worked well for them so far, she explained that she could well imagine a situation in which time might become even more difficult to negotiate. “The thing that I’ve found more challenging is if I’ve reached my quota [of time with my secondary partner] and my secondary partner is having a difficult time for some reason […] like, imagine [that one of his family members has] died, then that’s something that I would like to be there for him, for a prolonged period of time,” Ella told us. And, she continued: “What if that happens? Am I going to have to neglect [my primary partner] for like a week or two?” Despite these challenges, there seems to be an overarching sentiment that polyamory is worth the effort, purely for the amount of love and support that goes around among the partners. “I’m living my best life,” Ella told us. Disclaimer: We have changed the names of all the interviewees featured in this article to protect their identities. Grading Rubric for Forum Discussions Write a solid paragraph of about 250 words for your post. Your post must demonstrate critical thinking about families pondering materials and information from that week. Think about how you can contribute some substantive arguments to the discussion that goes beyond what has been already said and stated in the class materials - contextualizing and critically evaluating the issues. Consider questions like: Why are we seeing particular patterns? What could be contributing to the issues beyond the information presented in the readings and videos? What are the consequences of the observed patterns/phenomena? What does it mean for particular forms or groups of families? What does this mean for certain groups in our society? Can something be done about this - could policies or programs improve the issues? What did the authors (readings, videos) fail to consider? Etc., Questions like these demonstrate critical thinking and will most definitively add substance to your posts. Your post should be clear and well thought out. You can use examples from your personal experience to illustrate your thoughts but do not just recount things you heard or experienced, rather apply those experiences to make your arguments. Responses must also be substantive. Please do not just repeat what someone else stated, just cheer on your fellow students, or just add a personal anecdote. Do all of the above if you wish but add some substantive arguments to gain maximum points. Points 1. 2. Forum post. Thoughts about materials of the week - Post is substantive, informed, and critical 4 Points - Post is well thought out and clear 2 Points Respond with a substantive statement to two students in class Total possible points 4 Points 10 Points
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Find the guidance as attached.

Paper Outline
I.

Discussion Post
A.

Cohabitation

B.

Polyamory

II.

Response to Student 1

III.

Response to Student 2


DISCUSSION RESPONSES

1

DISCUSSION RESPONSES
Student Name
University

DISCUSSION RESPONSES

2
Discussion Responses

Part 1: Discussion Post
Cohabitation
Cohabitation is a common practice in modern societies and is attributed to many factors. To
begin with, tough economic periods have caused challenging times to many individuals. Paying bills
on time has become a financial challenge to many which affect their normal social relationships
(Balzarini et al., 2017). Cohabitation is one of the many transformations evidenced in modern
societies where individuals of involved in an intimate relationship live together (Rosenfeld &
Roesler, 2019). Both parties make vital contributions which include financial obligations for...


Anonymous
This is great! Exactly what I wanted.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags