My theory about future households.

**Rain Man** · 05-03-2006, 05:14 PM

We all know the trends. People have higher and higher expectations over time for material goods, which leads to more households where both husbands and wives work. We have bigger houses now, and big screen TVs and motor homes and robotic dogs and toothbrushes with built-in DVD players and stuff, but at the same time, we're working more, we're stressed and harried, our children are latchkey kids, and our savings rates for retirement are negligible.

I have a new model, and I think it would work.

Old model: Man marries woman, they have kids, and all of the above occurs.

New model: Two couples "marry" or perhaps three or four individuals "marry". All household finances and duties are pooled. All children are legally the custody of all adults.

The advantages of this system are many:

1. You get the advantages of more incomes, but can also get a stay-at-home parent if that works for everybody. You get June Cleaver and someone to be there for the kids, but you also get Rosie the Riveter and Ward Cleaver.

2. With artificial insemination, we may be at the point technologically where a child can be conceived who has a mixed soup of DNA from all of the adults in the household. Therefore, the child(ren) will belong to all of the adults equally (and will probably be genetically more robust to boot). You can truly create a family, as opposed to a commune.

3. Much more disposable income. Imagine a three-income household or a five-income household. There are lots of efficiencies in costs, too: You can buy a larger home more cost-effectively than two smaller homes, you would probably need fewer cars per capita, etc.

4. You have more support capacity for situations such as illness or incapacitation.

Now, I know that you're all immediately moving toward the sex thing. That would depend on the structure. You could conceivably have a model where you've got two couples with no physical interaction, though a stronger model might have a group of males and females with no natural coupling who can all interact at will (except the males, of course).

There's no physiological reason why a familial relationship couldn't develop between multiple people. And of course, it doesn't have to be an even number of people in boy/girl fashion, either. It could be a household that consists of one man and two women, or three men and two women, or even five women. Who cares? Move past the sex part and think about the family/household part.

And no, it's not polygamy. Polygamy means that one person marries many people. This is many people marrying each other on equal terms, without a cult of personality at the center of it.

The summary: if you had a household that consisted of multiple people, and their children were a genetic stew of all of those people, you would end up with a lot of affluent, healthy, stable, strong households. Defining a family as two adults is arbitrary and timeworn; defining a family as a consortium of adults who form a clan for mutual benefit is a superior approach, in which the old system still fits as a subset for those who prefer it.

Mark my words. It's the wave of the future.

stumppy · 05-03-2006, 05:23 PM

Just tell your wife you want to make it with her and another chick and get it over with. If you don't it's going to keep eating at you.

Sully · 05-03-2006, 05:23 PM

I gotta get a toothbrush with a DVD player.

...Time to have the fiance get another job...

**Baby Lee** · 05-03-2006, 05:23 PM

Big Love.

beavis · 05-03-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Big Love.

I hate that damn show.

stevieray · 05-03-2006, 07:49 PM

Sounds great, till doo doo hits the fan(financially), and you have to support multiple families instead of one.

This almost sounds like marriage will be eliminated.

BucEyedPea · 05-03-2006, 08:49 PM

True dat!

**Rain Man** · 05-03-2006, 05:25 PM

Polygamy is on the right track, but it's too narrow. Communes are on the right track, but they're too loosely organized.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Everybody gets their cake, and everybody gets to eat it, too.

**Rain Man** · 05-03-2006, 05:27 PM

I think I might write a magazine article about this. I wonder if it would fly with Better Homes & Gardens, or if I should go with something more progressive.

**Skip Towne** · 05-03-2006, 05:33 PM

You sound like Charlie Manson. You should be neg repped.

**Rain Man** · 05-03-2006, 05:35 PM

Manson was on the right track, except for the dementia and the stabbings and the murders. If Squeaky Fromme was running the household and Charlie and the others were working, I think they could have pulled off a pretty nice lifestyle system.

05-03-2006, 05:51 PM

I think it would work great if you could find another dude who had precisely the same size penis as you. This might open a market for penis calipers. Off to my laboratory I go.

mike_b_284 · 05-03-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phobia

I think it would work great if you could find another dude who had precisely the same size penis as you. This might open a market for penis calipers. Off to my laboratory I go.

**Bob Dole** · 05-03-2006, 06:31 PM

Bob Dole's ex father-in-law had a similar theory back in the early 1980's and as far as Bob Dole knows, is continuing to implement it.

Among other things, he subscribed to the theory that wealth lasts 3 generations. The first builds the wealth, the second maintains it, and the third--being so removed from what it took to build it--blow it. He pointed to strong matriarch figures in the old money families and decided that he'd replace that with a legal structure.

He and his wife both worked and they strictly lived on the lower of the two incomes, saving and conservatively investing every cent of the higher income for 30+ years. He formed a corporate entity and appointed the three children and their spouses to the board of directors. He bought land and under the guise of the corporation, was building a compound (for lack of a better word) near Columbia.

The annual board meeting was the family reunion (tax write-off for the kids to attend) and was held at the compound, where he planned what amounted to paramilitary training, because he's convinced that things will deteriorate politically and economically to the point that people will have to protect their assets with lethal force. As of Bob Dole's divorce in 1995, he had an arsenal that would put the Branch Davidians to shame, and Bob Dole knows of a large cache of gold.

Until the ultimate meltdown, the corporation offers scholarships, but the requirements are such that only family members are eligible. The students would attend MU and to save expenses, would live at the compound and help maintain it in exchange for a stipend (instead of getting a regular job).

There's a lot more to it, but that's the framework. 20 years ago, he was predicting that in Bob Dole's lifetime we'd see things deteriorate to the point that we'd need to return to multi-family sort of living arrangements.

05-03-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Bob Dole's ex father-in-law had a similar theory back in the early 1980's and as far as Bob Dole knows, is continuing to implement it.

Among other things, he subscribed to the theory that wealth lasts 3 generations. The first builds the wealth, the second maintains it, and the third--being so removed from what it took to build it--blow it. He pointed to strong matriarch figures in the old money families and decided that he'd replace that with a legal structure.

He and his wife both worked and they strictly lived on the lower of the two incomes, saving and conservatively investing every cent of the higher income for 30+ years. He formed a corporate entity and appointed the three children and their spouses to the board of directors. He bought land and under the guise of the corporation, was building a compound (for lack of a better word) near Columbia.

The annual board meeting was the family reunion (tax write-off for the kids to attend) and was held at the compound, where he planned what amounted to paramilitary training, because he's convinced that things will deteriorate politically and economically to the point that people will have to protect their assets with lethal force. As of Bob Dole's divorce in 1995, he had an arsenal that would put the Branch Davidians to shame, and Bob Dole knows of a large cache of gold.

Until the ultimate meltdown, the corporation offers scholarships, but the requirements are such that only family members are eligible. The students would attend MU and to save expenses, would live at the compound and help maintain it in exchange for a stipend (instead of getting a regular job).

There's a lot more to it, but that's the framework. 20 years ago, he was predicting that in Bob Dole's lifetime we'd see things deteriorate to the point that we'd need to return to multi-family sort of living arrangements.

That's AWESOME. I want in.

05-03-2006, 05:14 PM	Topic Starter
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3348491 VARSITY	My theory about future households. We all know the trends. People have higher and higher expectations over time for material goods, which leads to more households where both husbands and wives work. We have bigger houses now, and big screen TVs and motor homes and robotic dogs and toothbrushes with built-in DVD players and stuff, but at the same time, we're working more, we're stressed and harried, our children are latchkey kids, and our savings rates for retirement are negligible. I have a new model, and I think it would work. Old model: Man marries woman, they have kids, and all of the above occurs. New model: Two couples "marry" or perhaps three or four individuals "marry". All household finances and duties are pooled. All children are legally the custody of all adults. The advantages of this system are many: 1. You get the advantages of more incomes, but can also get a stay-at-home parent if that works for everybody. You get June Cleaver and someone to be there for the kids, but you also get Rosie the Riveter and Ward Cleaver. 2. With artificial insemination, we may be at the point technologically where a child can be conceived who has a mixed soup of DNA from all of the adults in the household. Therefore, the child(ren) will belong to all of the adults equally (and will probably be genetically more robust to boot). You can truly create a family, as opposed to a commune. 3. Much more disposable income. Imagine a three-income household or a five-income household. There are lots of efficiencies in costs, too: You can buy a larger home more cost-effectively than two smaller homes, you would probably need fewer cars per capita, etc. 4. You have more support capacity for situations such as illness or incapacitation. Now, I know that you're all immediately moving toward the sex thing. That would depend on the structure. You could conceivably have a model where you've got two couples with no physical interaction, though a stronger model might have a group of males and females with no natural coupling who can all interact at will (except the males, of course). There's no physiological reason why a familial relationship couldn't develop between multiple people. And of course, it doesn't have to be an even number of people in boy/girl fashion, either. It could be a household that consists of one man and two women, or three men and two women, or even five women. Who cares? Move past the sex part and think about the family/household part. And no, it's not polygamy. Polygamy means that one person marries many people. This is many people marrying each other on equal terms, without a cult of personality at the center of it. The summary: if you had a household that consisted of multiple people, and their children were a genetic stew of all of those people, you would end up with a lot of affluent, healthy, stable, strong households. Defining a family as two adults is arbitrary and timeworn; defining a family as a consortium of adults who form a clan for mutual benefit is a superior approach, in which the old system still fits as a subset for those who prefer it. Mark my words. It's the wave of the future.
Posts: 141,251

05-03-2006, 05:23 PM	#2
stumppy New and Improved Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Springfield, Mo. Casino cash: $1518590	Just tell your wife you want to make it with her and another chick and get it over with. If you don't it's going to keep eating at you. __________________ “As a nation, we can endure damaging policies for a four-year term. But we cannot survive a president willing to terminate our Constitution”
Posts: 21,074

05-03-2006, 05:23 PM	#3
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	I gotta get a toothbrush with a DVD player. ...Time to have the fiance get another job... __________________ "And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car." - Tommy Lasorda
Posts: 18,295

05-03-2006, 05:23 PM	#4
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6838598	Big Love. __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642

05-03-2006, 07:49 PM	#6
stevieray best in the biz Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Under Pressure Casino cash: $2615273	Sounds great, till doo doo hits the fan(financially), and you have to support multiple families instead of one. This almost sounds like marriage will be eliminated. Last edited by stevieray; 05-03-2006 at 08:42 PM..
Posts: 71,182

05-03-2006, 08:49 PM	#7
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3499963	True dat!
Posts: 161,714

05-03-2006, 05:25 PM	#8
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3348491 VARSITY	Polygamy is on the right track, but it's too narrow. Communes are on the right track, but they're too loosely organized. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Everybody gets their cake, and everybody gets to eat it, too. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,251

05-03-2006, 05:27 PM	#9
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3348491 VARSITY	I think I might write a magazine article about this. I wonder if it would fly with Better Homes & Gardens, or if I should go with something more progressive. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,251

05-03-2006, 05:33 PM	#10
Skip Towne Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: T-Town Casino cash: $10004900	You sound like Charlie Manson. You should be neg repped.
Posts: 69,689

05-03-2006, 05:35 PM	#11
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3348491 VARSITY	Manson was on the right track, except for the dementia and the stabbings and the murders. If Squeaky Fromme was running the household and Charlie and the others were working, I think they could have pulled off a pretty nice lifestyle system. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,251

05-03-2006, 05:51 PM	#12
Phobia Guest Casino cash: $	I think it would work great if you could find another dude who had precisely the same size penis as you. This might open a market for penis calipers. Off to my laboratory I go.
Posts: n/a

05-03-2006, 06:31 PM	#14
Bob Dole King Shit of **** Mountain Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Texarkana, Texas Casino cash: $2614497	Bob Dole's ex father-in-law had a similar theory back in the early 1980's and as far as Bob Dole knows, is continuing to implement it. Among other things, he subscribed to the theory that wealth lasts 3 generations. The first builds the wealth, the second maintains it, and the third--being so removed from what it took to build it--blow it. He pointed to strong matriarch figures in the old money families and decided that he'd replace that with a legal structure. He and his wife both worked and they strictly lived on the lower of the two incomes, saving and conservatively investing every cent of the higher income for 30+ years. He formed a corporate entity and appointed the three children and their spouses to the board of directors. He bought land and under the guise of the corporation, was building a compound (for lack of a better word) near Columbia. The annual board meeting was the family reunion (tax write-off for the kids to attend) and was held at the compound, where he planned what amounted to paramilitary training, because he's convinced that things will deteriorate politically and economically to the point that people will have to protect their assets with lethal force. As of Bob Dole's divorce in 1995, he had an arsenal that would put the Branch Davidians to shame, and Bob Dole knows of a large cache of gold. Until the ultimate meltdown, the corporation offers scholarships, but the requirements are such that only family members are eligible. The students would attend MU and to save expenses, would live at the compound and help maintain it in exchange for a stipend (instead of getting a regular job). There's a lot more to it, but that's the framework. 20 years ago, he was predicting that in Bob Dole's lifetime we'd see things deteriorate to the point that we'd need to return to multi-family sort of living arrangements.
Posts: 48,522