Caprica

First of all, this is not a post detailing why Caprica is awesome.  I firmly believe it is/was and that it shouldn't have been cancelled, but it isn't really something I want to debate.  What I would like to discuss is Caprica's view of sexuality.

Inside the world of Caprica there seem to be no laws dictating that x person cannot marry x person.  There are heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages, group marriages and all of this is not treated as novel or exciting but simply matter-of-fact.  Within the Caprica universe any adult consenting person can marry whoever they wish.

I was discussing this with a friend a while back and we decided that well sexuality was handled quite well, gender was hardly addressed at all.  And, I think I still stand mostly behind this opinion, but I was thinking about it more and realized that gender is addressed in at least small subtle ways.  Firstly, within the work force, women are fairly likely to be in any position (simple employee to management).  I would say that their workforce is still leaning toward androcentric, but I think it's more balanced than our own society.  Secondly, gender roles do not seem to exist.  Children are raised (what seems to be) equally by both/all parents, both/all parents generally work, and the person who cooks in a family appears not to be gender based.  So, even though Caprican society is still largely heteronormative, there are little improvements that made me happy.

Finally, what interested me most about Caprica (which I mentioned earlier) were the group marriages.  This is a topic that is not addressed by any (that I can think of) media source.  Within the show it was a fascinating dynamic.  Within the group marriage everyone had (relatively) equal standing and everyone was expected to pitch in with chores and raising the children.

Group marriage interests me because it addresses a question I have always wondered about: what would it be like to raise a child with more than two parents.  The traditional statement is: children should be raised by one monogamous, heterosexual couple.  But, a homosexual couple is just as likely (some statistics point to more likely) to raise a child well than a heterosexual couple.  That raises the question, why would one monogamous couple raise a child any better than four polyamorous people or two monogamous-to-each-other couples.  Traditionally throughout history, children have been raised in a group setting.  When raised by only two people, a child gets only those two (generally just one) perspectives.  However, if you were raising a child in a group setting then you would have so many more opinions and I honestly believe this would help teach a child open-mindedness and flexibility.

Certainly there would be some issues when raising a child in a group setting.  You would have to set out strict guidelines between all members involved in the raising before having a child.  If not, you would be fairly likely to get the: "no, she's my biological child so my opinion should have more sway" or I have more children, so my opinion should have more sway".  You would likely still get these issues even with agreed upon rules.  However, I do think it would be a fascinating and possibly positive way to raise a child.