Pagan wins human rights polygamy case - Page 15

On December 20 2011 23:17 dUTtrOACh wrote:
OK, so what I've gathered from the many pages of this is that if I want lots of wives, I have to move to Singapore and convert to Islam? It seems a lot of you are still uptight about this awesome polygamy thing.

On December 20 2011 23:20 hummingbird23 wrote:


Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.

On December 20 2011 23:06 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact is that historically polygamy hasn't really been tried in combination with women's rights as far as I know. The fact is that modern polygamy is something thats rather unusual. It's not going to be as conventional as man + wives. What we see now is a much larger mix of relations. There are ffmm marriages like gay couples marrying each other for biological children and straight couples marrying to make it easier to raise children etc.

This is basically uncharted territory and it's more of a question of whether our society is mature enough to handle it.

On December 20 2011 23:21 dUTtrOACh wrote:


Legal Polygamy

On December 20 2011 23:22 vetinari wrote:


Doubt it. Our reproductive strategies will still be determined by the fact that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. A few hundred years of industrialization, and 10,000 of agriculture are nothing to the 500 million since sex first evolved.

I'm not sure how straight couples marrying makes it easier to raise children. I mean, couldn't you get the same effect by living next door to each other?

On December 20 2011 23:15 hummingbird23 wrote:
@Vetinari

Are you sure your example of double income families is sound? Doubling the workforce doubles the amount of labour and increases the amount of goods produced. How is it possible that the entry of women into the workforce has caused DECREASED living standards? Something is not adding up in that evaluation of value transfers.

Also, how in the hell do you propose that a single income family is MORE prone to bankruptcy/homelessness due to injury/illness than a double income family?

Your claim of the nature of men and women rings false. I'm not convinced that population level generalisations of "oh women would rather share a few rich men" or "oh, men would rather have many women" holds much weight. Even the generalisations themselves are weak and waaaaaaaaaay overstretched from data that can be called preliminary at best.

Why not look at the choices that people are making for themselves? There's no law preventing people from multihabitating in many places. If people want open relationships, they're free to pursue them and should be free to pursue them.

On December 20 2011 23:27 nam nam wrote:
It makes it easier to raise children because you don't have to answer to a million of "WHY AREN'T YOU GUYS MARRIED YET?!" questions. Meaning social pressure.

On December 20 2011 23:27 hummingbird23 wrote:


What would be the benefit over a bunch of open relationships?



Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap for a huge chunk of species. Mating arrangements differ GREATLY though. What point are you trying to make?

On December 20 2011 23:22 vetinari wrote:


Doubt it. Our reproductive strategies will still be determined by the fact that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. A few hundred years of industrialization, and 10,000 of agriculture are nothing to the 500 million since sex first evolved.

I'm not sure how straight couples marrying makes it easier to raise children. I mean, couldn't you get the same effect by living next door to each other?

On December 20 2011 23:03 Tyrant0 wrote:
No, it's fairly correct. Generalized, but correct. I've seen everything you've said about Polygamy, and I never said it couldn't be abused, not to the extent that anything else already is. Doesn't mean it can't be legal without laws to protect those involved either.

On December 20 2011 23:45 vetinari wrote:


GDP has gone up as a result: BUT: GDP doesn't measure all production. What is the value of a home cooked meal? The care of the children? But, there are increased costs when you have two earners: you now need a second car, child care, processed food due to time constraints (more expensive than ingredients and less healthy too). Often these two costs alone would make it not financially viable to work without government subsidies.

Fixed costs have also increased: Utilities have increased above inflation (due to past underinvestment in infrastracture, privatisation). Second, healthcare costs have increased above inflation. Third, and this is the big one: housing. Housing has become much more expensive, where the decent schools are, because the prices have been greatly inflated by childless, dual earning households, and later aged dual earning households having a single child. This has made it impossible to live a middle class life-style on a single middle class income.

How they are more prone to bankruptcy? Because in a single income family, the family only goes bankrupt if the man gets injured/sick. In a two income family, the family goes bankrupt if the man gets injured or sick, the woman gets injured or sick, or one of the children get injured or sick. This bit is important: median male income has not increased in real terms since the early 1980's.

On youtube, there is a video of Elizabeth Warren (formerly on the credit consumer comission or somesuch), who goes over these statistics and more. Search for: the coming collapse of the middle class.
A good article on it too: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html

On December 21 2011 00:02 DoubleReed wrote:


If our goal was simple reproduction then this would have merit. However nowadays economic prosperity comes from fewer children with a higher quality of life. The only known cure for poverty is giving women control of their reproduction. Your argument has strong sexist implications that our society has grown out of.

Yes they could live next door to each other. Having another couple be able to pick up slack for your children makes things easier and can liven up people's sex lives.

On December 20 2011 23:45 vetinari wrote:


GDP has gone up as a result: BUT: GDP doesn't measure all production. What is the value of a home cooked meal? The care of the children? But, there are increased costs when you have two earners: you now need a second car, child care, processed food due to time constraints (more expensive than ingredients and less healthy too). Often these two costs alone would make it not financially viable to work without government subsidies.

Fixed costs have also increased: Utilities have increased above inflation (due to past underinvestment in infrastracture, privatisation). Second, healthcare costs have increased above inflation. Third, and this is the big one: housing. Housing has become much more expensive, where the decent schools are, because the prices have been greatly inflated by childless, dual earning households, and later aged dual earning households having a single child. This has made it impossible to live a middle class life-style on a single middle class income.

How they are more prone to bankruptcy? Because in a single income family, the family only goes bankrupt if the man gets injured/sick. In a two income family, the family goes bankrupt if the man gets injured or sick, the woman gets injured or sick, or one of the children get injured or sick. This bit is important: median male income has not increased in real terms since the early 1980's.

On youtube, there is a video of Elizabeth Warren (formerly on the credit consumer comission or somesuch), who goes over these statistics and more. Search for: the coming collapse of the middle class.
A good article on it too: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html

On December 20 2011 23:57 vetinari wrote:


They don't actually differ all that much. There are exceptions, but the predominant mating arrangement is males inseminate as many females as possible, while females try to get the best mate they can. Of course, there are exceptions both ways, but they are rare, and they exist in no apes or monkeys (except for one species that has only avoided being wiped out by chimpanzees due to being on the other side of a river that the chimps can't cross).

There is no evidence to suggest that the same instincts are not present and active in humans, and plenty to suggest there is. Namely, a significant majority of women are sleeping with a minority of men. I.e. women are selecting men they perceive to be "the best", and that men are selecting women they perceive to be "good enough". It would suggest modern polygamy would predominantly be the same as ancient polygamy. Alpha Ape + female Apes.

On December 21 2011 00:16 vetinari wrote:


Weeeeeeeelllllll, given the fact that our economies are teetering under the weight of healthcare costs, looking after the elderly, and welfare to single parents and the boomers have barely begun to start retiring . . . economic prosperity seems to having more children than we are having now. Besides, those who don't reproduce, die out. If country has a 1.0 birthrate, it will cease to exist in a few hundred years.

What are these strong sexist implications? That men and women have different mating strategies? That our genes haven't changed all that much over the last 10,000 years? That sexual attraction is instinctive and genetic? That given equal technology, the country with the greater population will be more powerful?

That said, I think your causality is reversed. Its not giving women control over their reproduction that created wealth, its industrialization that created wealth and incidently reduced birthrates. (children are useful on farms, expensive in cities). Wealth is what allowed feminism to take root in the first place.

On December 21 2011 00:11 Haemonculus wrote:

Yes, the economic plight of the middle class is shitty these days. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and the cost of living/education continuously increases. No one's going to contest that.

To say that this is *because* of women entering the work force is absurd.

To boot, the notion that 1950's style "Leave it to Beaver" housewives existed in the past for anyone but the richest of families is false nostalgia.

On December 21 2011 00:33 vetinari wrote:


Nope, its not absurd. Its true. Its fairly simple economics. Of course, its not the *sole* reason, but it is a significant contributing factor. You won't believe it, of course. After all, its not like an increase in the labour supply will decrease the price of labour, or that the chance of a man or a woman getting sick is greater than the chance of a man getting sick. Nor will you believe that working mothers have costs that working fathers do not. Or that dual income households will cause higher inflation than would single income households. No, its not like any of it is true.

Women entering the workforce increased male wages by competing with them. When both a man and a women are working, they get less sick than if only the man was working and the woman tending to her family's health. Processed foods are healthier and cheaper than home cooked meals. Women don't need cars to drive to work, and child care is free. An increase in the money supply causes a decrease in prices. . . . I can't go on.

The nature of womens work has greatly changed, it is undisputable that for the vast majority of american families, married women were not in full time employment in th 50's. Rather, it was a mixture part time work and working for the family business.

On December 21 2011 00:16 hummingbird23 wrote:


Wait, that makes no sense at all. If the costs of having a second person work were greater than the second person's wages, why is it that the second person continues to work? Should we not see poorer families forgo the wages of the second person in return for lower expenditure? What government subsidies are you referring to and how are they specific to double income households as opposed to single income households?

How is fixed costs like utilities and healthcare relevant to single income versus double income families? How do children or the lack thereof affect this?

Uh, there are several problems with your injury/illness model. The children are irrelevant. And the rise in healthcare costs have had little to do with women entering the workforce. Why is the fact that median male income not having risen since the 1980s is important?



You're referring to bonobos I take it. What is the basis for your assertion that this is because the chimpanzees were physically prevented from wiping them out? What is the evidence that a significant majority of women are sleeping with a minority of men? If this is the case, why is it that open relationships have not become the dominant form of informal partner arrangement.