| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:56 DeepElemBlues wrote: The problem with that is getting 3 men to share one woman is 1) probably impossible and 2) probably impossible. Not without 2 of the men being dead. there is a society where that is the traditional method (all the male children of the same mother ie brothers, share a wife) | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
If a man married for sex and attractiveness, he would not have something as defamatory as the term "gold digger" or "prostitute" levelled at him. Maybe men and women consider different factors when choosing a partner, but some of their factors are more culturally acceptable than others. He could be and probably would be referred to as shallow or something like that. And some men would admire or be jealous of him. Just like some women admire or are jealous of "gold diggers." People come in all stripes, and each stripe has a bunch of them in it. | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:48 DeepElemBlues wrote: He could be and probably would be referred to as shallow or something like that. And some men would admire or be jealous of him. Just like some women admire or are jealous of "gold diggers." People come in all stripes, and each stripe has a bunch of them in it. I think there's a wide margin of difference between "shallow" and "prostitute". | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
e: Forgot to add that historically polygamous societies have lower IQs on average than societies which do not practice polygamy. On the other hand IQ tests are typically culturally biased and polygamous societies are generally non-Western, so this may not prove as much as it seems -- but in any event there is no data supporting this particular assertion. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:12 blah_blah wrote: The misogyny and especially misogyny-disguised-as-science/evopsych in this thread is both rampant and disgusting. Polygamy is, at its core, exploiting of women. In particular, children raised in polygamist communities are not given the education and perspective necessary to make rational, informed choices on the lifestyle and are basically coerced into perpetuating the cycle of abuse. The purported links between IQ and polygamy are unlikely in the absence of evidence that the smartest males were the ones with significantly larger numbers of wives. Intelligence hasn't always been an especially good way to gain social status and attract women throughout the history of human societies. e: Forgot to add that historically polygamous societies have lower IQs on average than societies which do not practice polygamy. On the other hand IQ tests are typically culturally biased and polygamous societies are generally non-Western, so this may not prove as much as it seems -- but in any event there is no data supporting this particular assertion. No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation. There's no good reason why multiple informed adults can't consent to a polygamous relationship, other than it's illegal. A woman should be allowed to have more than one husband, and a man should be allowed to have more than one wife, if all parties are consenting. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:13 Euronyme wrote: I respect your opinion, even though it's wrong. Every heard the term gold digger? What about prostitute? What do you think's most common - young men marrying old and rich women, or young women marrying old and rich men? Men and women have different perspectives and goals when it comes to choosing a partner. That's a fact. Arguing that women are like jews isn't going to help you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12112283 Thank you for the BBC article. Very informative | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I think there's a wide margin of difference between "shallow" and "prostitute". And that margin is basically just a social construct, there's no real difference in whoring yourself out for money or just for gratification. | ||
|
khaydarin9
Australia423 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: And that margin is basically just a social construct, there's no real difference in whoring yourself out for money or just for gratification. Not biologically, but the context of this thread is not entirely about biology - it's about just that: social constructions of relationships. Strictly speaking, the concept of money is a social construction. Also, your use of the word whoring is ironic. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On December 20 2011 02:34 Luepert wrote: Its pretty impractical, your going to run out of women. Ironically, opponents of polygamy attack it on the basis that it's demeaning to women... Can I propose the hypothesis that, as demonstrated in that post, monogamy is demeaning to women? | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
On December 20 2011 09:33 Krikkitone wrote: there is a society where that is the traditional method (all the male children of the same mother ie brothers, share a wife) Which society is that? | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
| ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation. The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote: The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. Isn't this exactly the same sort of thing as religious indoctrination, though? And we don't ban religion because of it. So, not sure if this is a good argument. Or maybe it is, but that has some interesting implications. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote: Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. So, because battered women stay with their abusers, why aren't we banning monogamous relationships? The exact same arguments against polygamy can be used just as effectively against monogamy... | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
On December 20 2011 18:31 Nightfall.589 wrote: So, because battered women stay with their abusers, why aren't we banning monogamous relationships? The exact same arguments against polygamy can be used just as effectively against monogamy... Exclent point | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
one of the most revered interpretations of the "word" (to take a term from the christians) is the "charge of the goddess" -- in it is a line "all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals." this is interpreted to give full and free reign to embrace any form of sexuality, and to do so can be a part of your religious quest. this is a correct ruling by the UK court. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
What we have now is de facto polygamy/polyandry (I don't really see the difference between having 5 girlfriends at the same time for 5 years, and having 5 boyfriends in a 5 year period, each for 12 months. Each has had the same number of partners. The man has actually shown long term commitment! Of course, I don't support polygamy either, but frankly, its not because polygamy harms women. (it doesn't directly. its beneficial to middle/lower status women, as low status females get more access to high status men (and higher status women have to share.) Polygamy harms men (since every man with 2 women is a man with none*, and every man except the one at the top gets lower quality women**) and leads to more violent societies, as surplus males need to be gotten rid of (legions of angry men with nothing to lose is a recipe to disaster). However, more violent societies definitely harm women, given that women are weaker and less aggressive (on average) than men and are thus easy prey. Since violent societies by definition place more importance on martial prowess than non violent societies, female status is lowered. Thus the misconception that polygamy harms women directly. The type of relationship most conducive to a stable and prosperous society is lifelong monogamy, with only one partner in a persons lifetime. Of course, some people still get shafted, but less so than in any other system. (more accurately, nobody gets exactly what they want, since either gender getting exactly what they want fucks over both genders). *women are far less likely to want multiple concurrent long term partners than men. In any case, virtually no men will willingly share their women with other men. More women are willing to share men with other women. That doesn't mean that they are happy about it, but women will share if they perceive the man to be worth sharing, if the other choice is to not have him at all. **lower quality = of lesser looks, lesser health, older age, less feminine. (these are the 4 traits that are most important to men. A womens beauty (proxy for fertility), youth (chances of infertility for women double every 5 years, fecundity drops even faster), health (healthy women are more likely to be fertile), feminity (nurturing types are probably going to be better mothers than non-nurturing types.) Intelligence, wealth, education are of secondary importance. (each of those are important, but not as important as the big four.) | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote: The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
On December 20 2011 18:17 shinosai wrote: Isn't this exactly the same sort of thing as religious indoctrination, though? And we don't ban religion because of it. So, not sure if this is a good argument. Or maybe it is, but that has some interesting implications. Yeah, I think religious indoctrination of children is a very delicate ethical issue that most people are unaware of or choose to ignore. I believe that religious parents should of course be allowed to bring up their child according to the strictures of their religion, as long as these conform reasonably with acceptable behavior in modern, liberal, societies (i.e., child abuse is unacceptable), but on the other hand, bringing up a child with constant reminders of the existence of hell and eternal punishment, and inducing them to form opinions based on this, really is child abuse in a way, isn't it? On December 20 2011 18:31 Nightfall.589 wrote:So, because battered women stay with their abusers, why aren't we banning monogamous relationships? The exact same arguments against polygamy can be used just as effectively against monogamy... How do any of these arguments apply equally to monogamous relationships? Either you are trolling or just have a very poor grasp of logical argumentation. The majority of monogamous relationships are not abusive (unless you subscribe to a particularly radical feminist viewpoint, I guess). Monogamous relationships have a (very strong) net positive effect on society. Abuse may occur in just about any sort of relationship. Abuse is most common in relationships where there is some sort of power differential between the parties in the relationship; there are few societies with a greater average power differential than polygamist communities (highly patriarchal, religious societies are another, although most polygamist communities fall under this heading anyways). If you seriously believe that the arguments I have made in this thread easily show that monogamous relationships are wrong and harmful to society, please make the effort to elaborate in some detail as to how this is the case. The point of bringing up abusive relationships is that the idea that humans are rational actors who make informed decisions on important life issues is demonstrably false (the literature concerning this is basically endless); in fact, people routinely pursue actions which are obviously harmful to themselves and to society as a whole. This is why consent is not a sufficiently strong criteria for the legalization of various activities. This point is obvious but yet basically all libertarian-types choose to ignore it. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
Not because of anything to do with polygamy, because I see rational arguments for both sides, and my personal opinion could go either way. But what really rubs me the wrong way is that they needed to pull out religious reasons for the courts. It is a repugnant double standard that seriously needs to go. Either the law applies to everyone or it doesn't apply to anyone. Either the law is wrong/outdated and you get rid of it completely, or you apply it to everyone religious or not. To apply it selectively to only people who don't happen to be in a religion who's doctrines happen not to agree with it is just plain disgusting. What you believe shouldn't give you more or less rights than anyone else, you should neither have to nor be allowed to use religious reasons to be able to justify anything in a court of law. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
OSC
Kung Fu Cup
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
PiGosaur Monday
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
