This chapter deals with all the types of amorous or sexual unions, regardless of the number and gender of participants. Sexuality itself being treated in the previous chapter, this chapter therefore deals with all the other aspects, including for multiple or homosexual unions.
The warnings of the previous chapter VI-5 are valid here too.
A formal union is a union protected by law, by customs or by a spiritual sacrament. This is what we call a marriage.
(This includes concepts such as the French PACS, which is only a means to formalize unions without calling them marriages)
An informal union is a union based solely on trust between partners.
(This is often called «free union», but since this expression was taken over for the idea of consumable and disposable partner, I prefer not to use it here).
However, the ethical principles are the same for all the types of unions, formal or informal: the mere fact of initiating a relationship with a person makes this person dependent on us for his happiness (chapter VI-3). Therefore it is an as much serious commitment than abiding to a law or a sacrament. Thus the ethics and its obligations remain the same for the formal or for the informal.
Not understanding this point often led the proponents of free union (without formal marriage) to think that such a union can be dissolved at our fantasy. This is a serious perversion, since such a union creates emotional ties, or physical ties, which are dangerous to break. In extreme cases, this leads to the Sade's vision of disposable and consumable partners, so heartbreakingly illustrated by our «left» French politicians, a vision sustainable only in a world without feelings, where people are reduced to mere bodies.
Civil or religious law therefore can only formalize these ethical requirements. Spirituality has always recognized them. To introduce other considerations in the laws about unions always led to horrors.
In addition, the dependence of people to their relationship, makes that society (per person, or as a whole) must respect and protect the unions, either formal or informal. Laws may be enacted for this, including to protect informal unions.
However, these laws were often summarized in an obligation to stay together, even when the union is not viable (unpleasant or dangerous partner). We can obviously do better, but this needs to understand how the love bond operates (see below), to determine whether it can be repaired, or otherwise which of the two partners is at fault (refuses to do what is needed to maintain or repair the relationship). This point engages the responsibility of all the marriage counsellors, psychologists, experts, social workers, judges and lawmakers involved into taking care of family disputes. These people must on the minimum be psychoeducated (chapter V-12) and recognize the concept of energy (chapter V-17) which runs the couple, otherwise it is high hogwash (and a serious one, because their incoherent gesticulations can break even viable couples). Especially they need to understand the concepts of neurosis (chapter V-12) or sociopathy (chapter V-13). Not to do this leads the modern divorce to simply reproduce the antic pattern of repudiation, in addition to legally making orphans of the children, with the intolerable suffering which follows. This is immoral and criminal.
Many people who justify their divorce (or cause the divorce of others) invoke the «human nature», or the «necessity of evil» or other nebulous concepts without scientific or spiritual foundations. In fact, by far the main cause of disagreement in a union, if not the only, are the psychological problems of the partners, which lead them to adopt unpleasant attitudes, or to escape their obligations. The only solution to this is a psychological work, to better our core motivations and heal our neurosis: psychoeducation (chapter V-12). The law cannot impose psychoeducation, but it can impose a passage to a psychologist before calling to the court. If this psychologist finds the «fault» which prevents the union to operate (an attitude which deprives one of the partners of energy), then he can propose a remedy (a psychological or spiritual practice to correct the fault) which allows the couple to operate normally, and often to avoid a tragic divorce. We cannot legally impose such practices, but the refusal to accomplish them (which can be objectively assessed by the absence of attitude change) is a fault, which can then be presented to the judge to justify a divorce, the withdrawal of children, etc. while being sure not to commit any injustice. These measures would certainly save many unions. If the divorce is unavoidable, at least it is faster and much less unpleasant.
One might think that a spiritual law («theocracy») can work better in this direction, but this is not true: only the persons can psychoeducate themselves.
If we cannot legally impose a spiritual practice, however we can safely penalize attitudes like drug use, violence, stalking, segregationist views, extremism, etc.
Borderline cases arise when the political or religious authority is a cult, a dictatorship, a terrorist group, etc. Such immoral powers frequently do forced marriages, child theft, inappropriate marriages imposed by mind control, and «informal unions» in order to escape the obligations of the marriage. When a healthier society is restored, we must judge on a case per case basis the validity of such unions, basing primarily our decisions on the feeling of the members.
(Permalink) But there is another criteria which on the contrary brings a huge differences from the perspective of ethics:
-An Union without children
-An Union with children. I use the term family in this case.
The difference between the two is fundamental: the children are dependent on us for their development (Chapter VI-3 section C). This creates about them specific ethical obligations and prohibitions, which are always valid either from a legal point of view (including religious law) or if we stay in the informal.
Unions with children are most often often called families (possibly united in marriage), which are naturally heterosexual (both parents), and usually monogamous. But today LGBT unions claim the name of family and the right for marriage. It is clear that they must invent a new vocabulary, instead of only diverting the old religious terms. Be more creative, guys!
We saw in the previous chapter VI-5 that children need a specific environment, which shows no sexuality, and which shows relationships as close as possible of what nature intended: heterosexual unions without visible sexual fantasies (Especially not sadomasochistic domination, which normalizes violence, domination, or slavery, in the eyes of children)
Therefore, the model with a father, mother, children, family environment, and a village or tribe, remains the reference. This is what our Darwinian evolution planned, and our genes are building a brain optimized to work in this way, with the appropriate instincts (chapter V-16). This is why religions defended this model (which was a great liberation at the time, in a world ruled by slavery, brutality, repudiation of wives, theft or children). It is not homophobia which justified this model, but respecting the needs and freedom of the children. Indeed, this model does not prevent them from becoming homosexual, if they feel so, while a homosexual family necessarily imposes them this vision (or rather disgusts them) from the neurological difficulty to remove a sexual fantasy once it has been acquired (chapter VI-5).
So a LGBT union cannot adopt children (and obviously not use conception fiddling).
However the biological principles are not absolute either. Especially, it may happen that the exchange of energy (chapter V-17) works in a peculiar homosexual family, or polyamorous family, etc. Such situations can happen whith step families. It would then be counter-productive to separate this family which works, or to remove children who feel well in this family. It then is much more important for a child to receive the energy and support he needs, from his dependency, than having a natural model. All in all, it is so much better a homosexual family which works, than an heterosexual family in conflict. Conflicts and disputes are much more serious problems than another sexual model than what nature planned. We typically are in an area where an Aristotelian law inevitably leads to injustice, and a judge who «does not recognize non-Aristotelian logic» is at heavy fault, and must be dismissed. I did not invented this, it is coded in the very structure of the court.
-The unions, regardless of their customary, legal or religious statute, the number of participants, their gender or their fantasies, are intended to bring a greater happiness than loneliness. However, they fulfil this purpose only if the partners respect each other, and all contribute positively to the common experience. This requires a work of psychoeducation, psychological or spiritual, all the more as relationship problems make the common life more difficult.
-The marriage and other forms of formal unions have for purpose to facilitate or maintain the common life of the people, against the temptations, problems or circumstances which could dislocate it.
-Especially, an union with children, regardless of their customary, legal or religious statute, must be protected against psychological or behavioural problems, first with psychoeducation, and after, if one of the partner refuses to do so, by an obligation to change behaviour.
-In case of a serious problem, about which one of the partner refuses to provide a solution, then the other partner must be able to leave a union, in full economic and physical security. This implies the right to divorce, and to a fair divorce, which brings the fault on bad behaviour, instead of judging on the ground of arbitrary slander. This also implies the absence of legalization of things such as sexism, prostitution, domination, slavery, marking of the body.
-In case of a separation, children must then go to the most psychoeducated, or, if there is not, in another family. Orphanages and other «centres» must all be closed.
-From the need to provide children with a model which offers them the greatest freedom (Chapter VI-5), it is better to avoid multiple or homosexual unions. Especially we cannot force a child to enter in such a family through adoption. And in any case never show the children things such as sadomasochism, pornography, scatology, bestiality, domination/submission, slavery, prostitution, etc.
-Well, I must bring some nuance, because this is needed, but also because I do not want that morons use my General Epistemology as a pretext to harass homosexuals or sadomasochists, or to accuse me of intolerance:
-Despite the previous, people may still choose to do such multiple or same gender unions anyway. If these unions work, and the children feel well in them, then it is still better to leave them like this, than depriving these children of loving parents.
-Finally, there is an organic relationship between a mother and her baby (exchange of hormones, tenderness, breast feeding) which is completely destroyed by manoeuvres such as slaves mothers (euphemistically called «surrogates» mothers) or to go legally kidnap children in poor countries (I saw this). If we want children, so we need to get wet (with and without pun) and take things from the beginning to the end. It is totally unbelievable that a woman, to stay beautiful or to avoid sexual contacts, can discard her own effort, pain and risk on another woman, often poor or socially dependent. This should be prohibited without nuance or discussion, as a new form of slavery at a power 10.
These pseudo-«liberations» are not liberation at all. They are phantasms of rich people, which were imposed on us by amoral politicians and the media, without any concerting or reflection, while nobody asked for these. While, in the same time, my own children were deprived from their father for seven years, by sexist social workers.
-Every child is entitled to loving parents. If he is deprived, then the most urgent duty is to find some for him.
Non-scientific but well felt remark: I find it takes some nerve to call «progressive» steps which take us thousands of years back. Be a little responsible, guys, and assume the consequences of your (sexual) acts! As said so well Khalil Gibran, our children are not our possessions, but our responsibility: we must offer them the maximum of freedom and opportunity. From our example of a life respectful of others. In particular we do not have the right to impose our sexual tastes, but to let them choose their own when they are in age to do so. Otherwise, do whatever you want in the bed, but you do not have the right to impose it to anybody, and even not to spread it in public. You claim the right to freedom, to the difference? Your children too. But their freedom, their difference.
«Your children are not your children. They are sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they are with you yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For thir souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the make upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far. Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness. For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He also loves the bow that is stable.« Khalil Gibran
(Permalink) Added in August 2017
Love does not change only in intensity (growth, maintenance or decay), but also in cause, or focus. In «fuel», in a way. Some fuels are powerful but in limited supply, others are less spectacular but renewable.
- Sexual desire is a powerful incentive, but which can halt suddenly, or decay with time. It is often observed that sexual desire decreases rapidly in the event of a couple problem. In this case it may even become an aversion, where one of the partners complains of «marital rape».
- Economic security may also suddenly disappear: unemployment, disability, etc.
- Affection allows the relationship to last, as long as the partners provide energy and tenderness. This is the only factor on which we can really play, and still we are not saints: the machine only works if the two cylinders push together. One can give energy and tenderness only if the other gives some too, or at least is not a source of problems.
- Well understood spirituality also create energy and tenderness. It is a more difficult resource, but safer than affection, and less dependent on mood.
Conversely, some factors cause a faster wear of the machine, or even can break it net:
- The manipulator «friends». Often they use a minor fault, or they slander our partner to disgust us.
- Sometimes, unfortunately, some social workers oppose the couple instead of helping them (This is a serious professional misconduct, which must bring immediate dismissal).
- Unsatisfied amorous or sexual fantasies, which may lead to disappointment or even abandonment of the partner, for adventures which will remain only at the stage of sexual attraction.
- Egocentrism, scolding, bad character and other defects of personality end up disgusting the best partners.
- The refusal of psychoeducation perpetuates defects of character, and are then a fault, disgusting the partner and justifying divorce with wrongs.
- Beliefs are always very dangerous, either they arise from religion, television, astrology, or even from eco-New Age «channels». Indeed, a person capable of self-delusion with any belief, can at any time contract a new belief, which may be toxic to the couple.
Thus, a loving relationship, far from simply varying in intensity, will almost always pass from one functioning to another, or will be confronted with one or the other of these aggressions. The art is then rebounding with every change in functioning, and adapt accordingly. For example, if one partner thinks that the other has a defect, real or imaginary, his sexual interest may drop dramatically. Ignoring the problem will not solve it, and may even lead to aversion. It is then needed, depending on which of the two cases applies, for the offending partner to improve his behaviour, or for the hallucinated partner to examine things more objectively. By failing to do what is appropriate, the relationship becomes unpleasant, and can then break easily.
In final, only the ability to adapt to these different phases, or different functioning (sexual, economic, emotional, spiritual), or the ability to resolve the various failures (belief, «buddies», slander, defects, handicap, loss of income...) are the only things which allow a couple to really last.
The true definition of love
(Permalink) Romantic love, the eternal and unconditional passion in the Tristan and Isolde style, does not exist as such. There is either no «magic» behind love, and especially no «chance» which would promote the happiness of some and the misfortune of others. There is no more «subtle» things, that we should «guess» or that we should know without anyone to teach us, or that some people «feel» and not others. If a potential partner tells you that kind of talk, you can summarize it by simply «no».
The classics advices remain vague: to have common tastes, similar age, etc. This only works if the couple is in the love neurosis (chapter V-12), and no crisis is revealing potential disagreements. The whole game of matrimonial agencies and other «meeting» websites is then to cause the neurosis. This is strictly speaking a mind control, very similar to those of the sects.
We have a «love instinct» hardwired in our brains by our genes. It is very good at starting a love affair based on sexual attraction. But it was not updated since the monkeys, so that it is unable to cope with our complex psychological problems. So it not either is a reliable guide.
Real love is built, it feeds, it is maintained, protected. Just like a garden. If we do not, then it weakens and dies: the beloved person then appears dull or unpleasant. If one wishes to engage in a relationship, or if we are proposed to, then we need to know how these things work. And do what it takes for them to last. Because it is still more interesting to do something which looks like Tristan and Isolde, than a brawl in the court, while throwing the kids at our faces.
The fact that the natural feeling of love is a neurosis does not prevent a couple to operate and to be happy, as long as nothing comes to reveal some non-perceived defect. From there come some other common rules like not to talk about politics or religion, allowing the sweet illusion to be maintained long enough for calling it a «successful couple» (today, if it lasts longer than five years). But as unexpected as unavoidable situations can arise, and they break the couple by healing the neurosis (or unfortunately, most often by inverting the neurotic attachment into a neurotic hatred). We may call it the «Dreyfus effect», from the Dreyfus affair, well known in France between 1894 to 1906, for bringing disputes and divisions in many apparently united groups and families. What was happening was that the nauseating racist stench of the affair revealed the hidden racism or the hidden generosity of these people, who then began to dispute.
In these circumstances, it is clearly better not to engage in a neurotic union, which can ruin our lives at any time. However many do it anyway, from desire, or thinking that the short-term benefits outweigh the inevitable sad ending (disputes, divorce, old age, widowhood ...)
The solution is then to engage in a psychoeducated (chapter V-12) union, without neurosis. Indeed, true love is not blinding ourself, but a exchange of energy (chapter V-17): each partner should feel encouraged and supported by the other, for what he is (in positive, of course). The satisfaction of receiving a constant source of energy then makes that even very dissimilar couples can operate, and last without wear despite radical changes of situation. People who do like this can even continue to love despite the ugliness and pangs of old age! They then have no need of neurosis to hide their differences, but they still need attention. The assumed and deliberate exchange of energy allows for the psychoeducated union to last much longer, without artifice, and bring as much happiness than the neurotic union, if not much more. Especially this happiness is independent of things such as cohabitation, sexual activity, money, age, disability, etc. So for we are on this, this gift of energy has no reason to be limited to a couple: platonic relationship and friendship too become stable and satisfactory.
It results of this a set of rules which allow for a happier couple life:
1) We can define the couple and love as a the reciprocal choice to support a preferred stable partner, by providing him energy and social recognition.
(See Chapter V-17 for the scientific definition of energy, instead of braying that it does not exist)
This gift of energy can take many forms, physical, emotional, spiritual, presence and time spent, compensation of dependence (chapitre VI-3 section C), protection, encouragement, confession, etc.
(Note that this is also true for any type of union, heterosexual, homosexual, multiple, platonic, with or without children, and even for friendship, social associations, economic activities, etc. A note which also applies to all the following rules)
A relationship based on mutual gift of energy can last indefinitely and survive all the crisis, while the love attraction (the «love neurosis»), the sexual attraction or the egocentric interests can disappear at any time, and even suddenly flip over and transform the relationship into destructive hatred.
2) Supporting the partner in what he has of positive. This support (1) must relate to the positive emotions and activities of the partner, with a correct definition of good and evil (6). To encourage someone in evil and in vice is on the contrary the worst thing we can do to somebody.
3) Start on a clear basis: each express his projects, what he expects of life, or from the other. Disagreement at this stage is often irretrievable later. Not talking of this is almost always a manipulation. This is important, as the fact of being in a couple often radically change our lives. But this must not happen at the expense of the fundamental project of any of the two partners.
4) Not having certain psychiatric disorders. Psychosis and sociopathy are unfortunately incurable today, and the only solution is the immediate divorce. Other disorders such as mild schizophrenia, autism, mental disability, are not incompatible, but they obviously require more patience (8) from the partner, and an absolute contraception. The patient must clearly recognize the situation. And do not forget to take his medication, if applicable.
5) To be honest. That is, to be honest in our words and deeds, with a positive direction (6) in life. When disputes occur, the courts must always give the blame to those who do not meet this criterion, and the children to the other.
6) This honesty (5) must of course arise from a correct view of good and evil. If we accept «philosophies» such as there is no right or wrong, then we are left unable to correct a crooked or pervert partner. This is why this chapter comes after Chapter VI-2 of the scientific definition of good and evil. This definition makes that some political orientations, spiritual orientations, tastes, etc. are clearly good, and others are clearly bad. And again in a divorce the wrongs go to the one with the bad direction.
Other directions are not clearly good or bad. This may work as long as one is in love neurosis, but at the slightest problem, this blur will be the joint where the lever of doubt will inserts itself naturally.
An important point here is that mankind is today in a fast evolution process, where we often realise that things which were considered good are discovered to be actually bad, or the contrary. Refusal to follow this process places oneself in a guilty position.
7) Do not exploit the partner, or impose him things that he can not accept (This rule is known even in sadomasochist clubs, telling us that even the «sexual liberation» finally found nothing better than what Jesus already said).
8) Be patient. People do not change overnight, and to force someone in a way often has the opposite effect than expected. This is especially true of spiritual disciplines, which choice is strictly personal, including in a couple. This patience also include bearing the faults of the partner. It is unavoidable to go through this.
9) However there are human limits to patience. Not everybody is a saint or a hero, nor requested to be. Especially, we must not allow for the partner to destroy us, neither allow him to take up all our time for his egotistic desires. It would be a disservice to him anyway. If such things happen, then we go to the next case:
10) Talk. Say objectively, without reproach, verbal or emotional abuse, what is wrong, or what is expected. And this well before any negative sentiment appears. To endure in silence, or to have unformulated expectations, are the worst destroyers of couples. Only if the partner refuses a legitimate request (6) we can consider that there is a problem. Depending on the severity or the issues (children, joint activities) we need to apply the rule (8) on patience (especially if there are children), or otherwise consider a separation.
11) Treat the neurosis. This can easily be done today with the many psychological and spiritual methods which are available. There is no excuse not to do so.
To cure the love neurosis has many benefits, including for the relationship itself, which then becomes a psychoeducated union: the chance to last and to bring the expected happiness are greatly increased.
However the process is likely not to happen at the same pace for the two partners. In addition, it can unveil that the union was a cheat (for instance if the cured partner realizes that the other exploits him and continues to do so). Hence the following rule:
12) Treat the neurosis together. An union between a psychoeducated partner and a neurotic partner is frustrating for the first, and often confusing for the second (who does not understand a relationship which does not work as in soap operas or «reality» shows). However it is the second one who holds the key to the problem: cure his neurosis. This is why spirituality so often leads to the end of unions, when one of the partners advances and the other refuses to advance. (Thus this phenomenon is not some «cost to pay», and especially not the liberation of somebody which would entail the fall of another. People fall only from their own lack of effort to stay upright, or their rejection of the helping hands).
In principle, in the court, to refuse psychoeducation should be counted against the person. But we must also take into account the human difficulty to engage in such a process.
13) Take care of oneself. Even if one wants to be «purely spiritual», a significant part of the feeling of love remains based on the physical appearance, style (chapter VI-9), behaviour, etc. Unfortunately, many women dress in ugly ways, make horrible hair folds, stray in curlers, etc. Men dress «in old»: brown, grey, toad-looking beret. At all ages, to be neglected (walking along in underwear, unshaven, unkempt...), obesity, dirt, bad smells, vulgarity, foul language, belching, grey or ugly clothes, smells of cigarette, meat or wine, all these make an unpleasant life to the partner. Then few is enough for this partner to realize that this relationship no more brings him anything essential for long.
14) The psychoeducated union requests some attention and some effort (acceptable) to provide energy to the partner. But even so, it can remain satisfactory even through severe crisis, or along the evolution of each partner.
15) The classic advice, such as having compatible tastes or concerns, are good advices, but only advices. And to follow them can be complicated, in the case of sexual fantasies, as they can vary, and even be created abruptly if we look at porn films or at militants of the compulsory sexual freedom. Instead, a psychoeducated union can accommodate with vast differences in taste. It even sees differences as a wealth, rather than a problem.
16) A loving union is nor a «business» neither a «contract». Those things presuppose that both partners each have an ego which gives only by calculation. Instead, the loving union is a non-ego and non-action situation, where each partner gives because we need give without expecting something in return, for the relationship to work properly. This is a situation where we especially have to avoid ego plays or power plays. Otherwise it is infinitely better not to engage in it.
And if the union is not a business contract with accounting of the efforts of each partner, then what is it? The answer is in the TWO points (17) and (18):
17) The loving union is a situation of reciprocal natural dependency (Chapter VI-3 section C), where each partner depends on the other for his happiness. This dependence can also be economic, moral, emotional, etc. Each partner therefore has the moral responsibility of reducing the dependency of the other, where it takes place. This is why the unions are so often protected by marriage, customary, civil or religious. Of course if one of the partners is taking advantage of the dependency of the other, then it creates a difficult to live situation for this other. The abusive partner must then bear the blame in a divorce.
18) There is no accounting of the merit. This means that, according to the dependency, according to the capacity of the partners, or to different situations, one partner may have to apply more patience (8) than the other, or to make more efforts (2) (11) (13). There is a fault only when one partner ignores these obligations, while he had the opportunity to comply with.
We can even say that the fault is in invert proportion of the effort that one refuses! For instance a severely ill patient may have to perform inhuman efforts to live normally with the other, while a so-called «libertarian» will not even make the effort of a small kind word. Love the first, kick the ass of the second.
19) Many people with insufficient psychological or spiritual capacities still use, against the paragraph 16) above, a form of marriage or contract (French PACS, etc.). The society then helps them by offering such contracts and by enforcing the corresponding obligations. This can be a clever way to compensate for the lack of capacity, and be more viable than a free union.
However such a contract is valid only if it is used as an help for the right behaviour.
If, totally at the opposite, it is used only to make sure to have an available sexual partner, while offering him an economic or psychological counterpart, so it is closer to prostitution than to love.
In practice, these rules are not a check list to apply stupidly, but gradated or non-dual (chapter I-3) rules, where each couple follows an unique path. Indeed, we too often saw religious, social or political texts diverted from their generous meaning, through too strict interpretations, too intellectual, or cut off from the inspiring view (chapter I-9). Sexual liberation is taking exactly the same route, as soon as it becomes a new social norm with a new bundle of dogmas to carry along. This rule (20) is specifically intended to not repeating such mistakes. Especially I forbid anyone to call my authority or my proposals to impose any arbitrary authority system.
One of the protections is that some of these rules will appear contradictory to a dualistic person.
You shall rarely find these tips in books on sexual education. One reason is that if people start to behave this way in family, then they will very quickly realize that the same attitude also gives fantastic results in society, including in the economic associations (the «business», yes). Clearly, love would collapse the whole system of power and oppression by money (chapter VI-8).
This is also why the new financial nobility invested so much money in promoting sex without love: our body is them a mere «working tool» to run the system. This is why the sexual liberation of the 1960s was so easily taken over, while the associated spiritual liberation is on the contrary denigrated and assimilated with cults.
(Permalink) On the same model as above, we find that all the points about the couple relationship are also valid for the relationship with children, but with a big difference: the dependency relationship is totally unbalanced. Let us state it accurately:
21) Basically, the parent-child relationship work as in the couple, by gift of energy. However there is one important difference: children are naturally dependent of the parents (Chapter VI-3 Section 3-C), in an asymmetrical way. Thus the exchange of energy (chapter V-17) is essentially one-way: parents owe everything to the children, the children do not owe anything to the parents.
22) The point (21) tempers itself as follows: Parents are not supposed to be saints. If parents have no return to require from their children, they may still need such a return, to be humanly able to give to their children. For this reason the interest of the children is to express their gratitude in one way or another, instead of being a source of problems or conflicts. To see young children happy and blooming is usually enough, but the teenager is smart enough to be liable: useless to complain of lack of love, if he makes a hell of the home.
This is why many traditions ask children to revere their parents. But these traditions must not oppose the point (21). Especially children must decide themselves about their lives, instead of being the «continuation» of their parents.
23) To make children is a commitment to twenty years of self-denial, where we often have to give up our most important projects. This is especially true for pregnant mothers or with young children, who must be available full-time. But the roles become less restrictive and more interchangeable thereafter, allowing both mother and father to pursue other goals simultaneously.
24) The only valid reason for having children is to allow them in turn for the experience consciousness and happiness. Any other motive or interference is perverse and forbidden, especially the irresponsible notion of infinite expansion of the population, or the Petain's notion of procreation to strengthen a race, ideology, economy, etc.
25) Point (24) involves a birth control method for all, 100% reliable and controllable by both partners. If there is some blur or slack about this, then it is that there is a scheduled shenanigan (including the good old excuse of wanting only «natural methods».)
I recall here some facts to «some women»:
-A baby is a person, not a doggy or a toy
-A baby grows very fast, and we can no longer treat him like a kitten.
-A child costs more than he brings family allowance, and he requires more work than a job. Clearly, having children is not a plan to live without working.
-A child is not a hostage for ransom (called child support, but it is a ransom when the separation is intentional or caused).
-A father is a person, not a disposable insemination dildo. There are chances that he shows up after. A good father will necessarily do.
The fundamental notion of the child's interest has more definitions than there are judges and social workers, and the majority of these definitions definitively extinguish the light in their eyes. So I give here a scientific and precise definition, in the following four points:
26) the interests of any young child is to enjoy the organic and sensual relationship with his mother: breast feeding, care, tenderness, smiles, etc. (Reminder: «sensual» is not synonymous with «sexual». This chapter is not about sex). This organic relationship can work easily only with the mother who bore him and gave birth to him. This:
-Forbids slaves mothers (euphemistically called «surrogate mothers»)
-Forbids children abductions (euphemistically called «adoptions on humanitarian grounds», to go and buy or remove their children to poor mothers in Third World countries)
-Forbids adopting of children by a man or men (Chapter VI-5).
There is of course here no discrimination or whatzit-phobia: it is simply the recognition that a man is not a woman, and that they have different capacities (Chapter VI-2). Especially a man has no ability to breastfeed, and to claim the right to do so will change nothing.). On the other hand, we cannot avoid that after a separation or a death, a child can be left with his father, either this father stays alone or he contracts an homosexual union. Such families then have the same rights as any other.
-Forbids the feeding bottle
Once I did a test on 20 persons, just looking at them, and I guessed right on 18 on who was breast fed or not. So that the trauma of breast feeding deprivation is clearly visible, and nobody can pretend that there is none.
-Forbids harassment of breastfeeding women (intimidation, anti-lactation hormones, public assaults)
-Reserve caesareans to dangerous situations.
-Forbids the torture of children by changing them from custody or spare parents
(in a French case, a victim could obtain her file, and found 70 changes! She had been purposely made orphan 70 times!! The qualification of torture is inescapable.)
-Forbids administrative detention centres for children without families («orphanages»)
-Impose the custody to a stable spare heterosexual family, in case the organic mother is deceased or unable to properly take care for the child, and that the father is not available either.
(Whether this is legally qualified «adoption» or «custody» or «guard» does not matter at all, as long as it is stable and protected)
-In case of separation of a couple, it is useful to give preference to the mother of a baby, if there is no abuse. But this difference fades quickly with age: after weaning the child must be entrusted to the most psychoeducated of both parents, or at least the less faulty.
27) At any age the child's interest is to receive his energy (chapter V-17) from his parents, peers, and society. For this he needs love, smiles, encouragement in what he is or what he does (with the important subject of point (6)) without pressure to be or do something else. For this the child needs:
-A mother, according to (26)
-A father, who helps the mother of his young child. The two roles balance later.
-A family circle or social circle (village, tribe)
-Respect, protection and social recognition of the whole society: neighbours, educators, teachers, social or legal aid, administrations, etc.
28) At any age the child's interest is to receive an appropriate education:
-Have confidence in himself and in his human value
-To harmoniously and sensually inhabit his body and personality (Reminder: «sensual» is not synonymous with «sexual». This chapter is not about sex.).
-To discover beauty, live in a pleasant environment, in touch with nature.
-To receive Intellectual and manual training which will allow him to pursue activities of his choice.
-When activities are imposed to the child, such as school, to explain him why. In practice, a mere intellectual explanation is not enough. We have to give him the desire for the activity (chapter V-15).
-To receive a normal education (chapter V-15) working with the desire, not an education based on sadomasochistic dominance-submission, competition, or a Pétain's cult of sacrificial effort.
29) At any age the child's interest is that everybody speaks with the same voice: parents, relatives, tribe or neighbourhood, friends, buddies, society and authority, educators, creators of video games, of children's books, etc. This meaning approving the project of the parents for their children. With however the large reserve of point (6). If this condition is not met, then the children automatically follow the easiest path for them. By the simple fact of having to make this choice, they lose confidence in their parents and the whole society, always with disastrous results. To instill doubt between parents and their children is a criminal activity, worse than paedophilia. Those who do that are called pedoclast, and they must receive mental care. Making this with a legal or social authority is an aggravating circumstance, which should result in immediate dismissal.
As to a society rulled by immoral or fiddlers, useless to complain if children imitate then! That finally so few do so, it is encouraging.
30) A child is not supposed to be a saint. He even often goes through different phases of opposition, which are an integral part of his development (to control the ego, to learn non-duality between freedom and respect for others). A proper spiritual education normally allows the child to integrate the necessary learning, and these phases to pass without turning to a conflict. But often this means that parents and educators have a means of pressure on their children, which may take the form of punishments, including benign and non-hazardous corporal punishment (no need to look for, it has already been invented: spanking. I do not claim precedence...) this acts as a vaccine, painful but necessary. And, as explained in chapter V-15 on education, if administered in the right moment, very few is enough, without the need for any booster dose. In these conditions, it is depriving the children of punishment which is an abuse. As the saying goes, the most painful spanking is the one we never had. Well, I am aware that this is illegal in some countries. So I cannot recommend this method for these countries. But we must then consider these laws as a prohibition against having children.
31) Use of punishments, corporal punishment, or other means of pressure for purpose of enforcing the child into submission or into an ideology (chapter I-9) is an aggravated ill treatment.
32) Children are entitled to their own projects, their own orientations, be it in the emotional, beauty, spirituality, studies or activities. (With the large reserve of point (6)). The role of the parents, peers and society, is then to facilitate the children's awareness, about their orientations, and facilitate the realization of it, without imposing them another.
33) To remove a child from his parents must be done only in case of serious physical, emotional or spiritual danger. This of course imposes that the person making this decision knows these dangers. if not, this person is oneself the main source of danger or aggression. Especially someone who thinks that the notion of spiritual danger is «unclear» has no more to do in a court than peeling potatoes.
In any cases, a child withdrawn from his parents must be entrusted to a spare couple (26)
To remove a child from his parents for purpose of enforcing them into submission or into an ideology (chapter I-9) is an aggravated ill treatment and a serious violation of human rights.
34) The lower capacity of children (Chapter VI-3) makes them more vulnerable to physical, sexual, moral or spiritual aggressions. They need more protection than adults. This assumes of course that these adults know these dangers, otherwise they are themselves a source of danger or aggression.
-A common type of spiritual aggression is to let the children live in a ninny world different from that of the adults, for example by showing them stories of Mickey or Santa Claus. Children need to know the real world, even if they do not understand everything. Not to mention what happens the day when they understand that their parents made fun of them (see point 29).
35) Every child, regardless of his race, nationality, religion, mode of conception or birth, marital status or gender of his parents, their legal or financial situation, must enjoy his full legal and human rights, loving parents, a normal education, a normal financial situation, normal health coverage, full support and full acceptance by society, full freedom, full protection against discrimination accusation, hazing, etc. With the sole reserve of his reduced capacity (Chapter VI-3 Section 3-C), which require a benevolent and respectful parental care, respecting all these points.
The reason for this is, among other things, to avoid imbecilities such as:
-that children bear the responsibility of the actions of their parents, as in communist regimes, when children are considered «accomplices» of their parents, or in capitalist regimes, when children are punished for the poverty of their parents.
-discriminations against the children of an «enemy» country, or even just foreign, against the children of slaves, refugees, migrants, nomads, etc.
-discriminations against children without nationality or without identity
-secret on the the origins of abducted children, adopted children or from conception fiddling
-discriminations against the children of consanguineous marriages, incestuous, homosexual, out of wedlock, with «commoners», etc.
-discriminations and judicial harassment against single parents, like those I was myself a victim
-genetic or medical attempts to give birth to pre-programmed children (for labor, war, sex, etc.)
36) Anyone who does not agree with these 16 points, who does not «understand» or «not recognizes» notions such as energy or social recognition, should be immediately dismissed from teaching, education, medicine, social services and the judiciary. And they all have zero votes in the elections (or just their mother, so that they understand what parents are for)
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.