|
On December 20 2011 09:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal Two reasons. 1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders. 2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage. Advocating your own interpretation of this then? Might as easily say it's the norm, except for a bunch of radical left-wing free love proponents seeking to tear down society. Ugh.
Indeed. The radical left-wing has always been seeking to tear down society with perversions such as interracial marriage and homosexuality.
Not marrying outside your race used to be the norm, too.
If anything, you're perpetuating a stereotype, here. Somehow, I doubt that my polygamous friends are in it to tear down society.
|
On December 21 2011 11:55 DoubleReed wrote:And women, just like men, are not ok with their spouse having sex with other people as part of instinct. Women put up with traditional polygamy because they were not considered equal. Women are frequently jealous and cruel to each other in traditional polygamous relationships.
Polyamorous relationships work best when everyone involved is having sex with each other.
It's hard to feel jealous about two people you love also loving each other. The stereotypical man in a MFF threesome is far from jealous when watching the two women pleasuring each other, and the same applies to other polyamorous configurations as long as there is some degree of bisexuality (or homosexuality in all-male or all-female relationships) involved.
Clearly, heterosexuality is the problem. 
|
You see, the thing is, spots in medical schools are highly limited, and thus it is in the best interest of society to train those who are going to use the training, than those who do not. What is better return on investment? A doctor that works full time for 5 years once training is complete, then works part time, maybe returning to full time work when the kids are grown, until 65? Or a doctor that works full time and over time from the day he finished training until the day he retires of old age? (Ireland has 60% of its female doctors working full time by at age 40, compared with 95% of its male doctors, with the male doctors also working considerably higher hours than female full time doctors.
I like how you say the limiting factor is the amount of spots in medical school (completely unrelated to women) and you suggest that the answer is to remove women rather than create more spots.
|
On December 21 2011 15:50 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +You see, the thing is, spots in medical schools are highly limited, and thus it is in the best interest of society to train those who are going to use the training, than those who do not. What is better return on investment? A doctor that works full time for 5 years once training is complete, then works part time, maybe returning to full time work when the kids are grown, until 65? Or a doctor that works full time and over time from the day he finished training until the day he retires of old age? (Ireland has 60% of its female doctors working full time by at age 40, compared with 95% of its male doctors, with the male doctors also working considerably higher hours than female full time doctors. I like how you say the limiting factor is the amount of spots in medical school (completely unrelated to women) and you suggest that the answer is to remove women rather than create more spots.
Very well, let us extend your logic.
It costs about 20 million to train a fighter pilot. We have a population of wannabe pilots. Half of the pilots have a highly likely to quit the air force 2 years after completing training. The other half of the pilots are highly likely to stay with the airforce for 20 years.
Do you: restrict jet fighter training to the people who will stay in the job or increase the amount of fighter pilots you train?
Do you get it now, or do I have to put it in simpler terms: money does not grow on trees.
|
On December 21 2011 15:07 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal Two reasons. 1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders. 2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage. Advocating your own interpretation of this then? Might as easily say it's the norm, except for a bunch of radical left-wing free love proponents seeking to tear down society. Ugh. Indeed. The radical left-wing has always been seeking to tear down society with perversions such as interracial marriage and homosexuality. Not marrying outside your race used to be the norm, too. If anything, you're perpetuating a stereotype, here. Somehow, I doubt that my polygamous friends are in it to tear down society.
Hey man, you say religious insecurities are the reason polygamy is opposed, I'd say that's just as likely an explanation as your goals are the destruction of society.
|
On December 19 2011 00:29 Avius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate. I never thought about it this way, but this makes absolute sense. Women are naturally drawn to men of power, so basically every normal guy would be left to hang. I'm not for or against polygamy actually, because I don't care how people choose to live their lives if it has no effect on mine anyway, but from this PoV it seems like it makes sense that polygamy has been declared illegal. Not sure if this is the actual reason as to why it is illegal. As for the case described in the OP, I'm not quite sure. I'm neither in Law nor Philosophical Arts but for me personally, being one dumb grunt in billions, I don't really care what those pagans do. It could trigger a "why them and not us" attitude from other people, but I can't comment on that. And tbh, when I read the title I just saw the Pagan and thought "WOW ULTIMA 8: PAGAN". Such a good game.
How does that makes absolute sense? If you seriously believe that legalizing polygamy would lead to 1% having 50 % of the women I don't even know what to say... It's a bad rationalization as to why people don't like the idea of polygamy. Either you are in the 50 % that wouldn't be able to get a woman and are afraid because of it or you think you are the 1 % and "feel sorry" the rest of us. One is irrational and the other is arrogant with a deludes sense of righteousness.
|
On December 21 2011 16:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 15:07 Nightfall.589 wrote:On December 20 2011 09:00 Danglars wrote:On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal Two reasons. 1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders. 2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage. Advocating your own interpretation of this then? Might as easily say it's the norm, except for a bunch of radical left-wing free love proponents seeking to tear down society. Ugh. Indeed. The radical left-wing has always been seeking to tear down society with perversions such as interracial marriage and homosexuality. Not marrying outside your race used to be the norm, too. If anything, you're perpetuating a stereotype, here. Somehow, I doubt that my polygamous friends are in it to tear down society. Hey man, you say religious insecurities are the reason polygamy is opposed, I'd say that's just as likely an explanation as your goals are the destruction of society.
Except that in very recent history, religion has been very defensive, and vocal in its opposition to interracial/homosexual/polygamous marriage.
Whereas iterracial/homosexual/polygamous couples, from all accounts, haven't been particularly keen on the destruction of society.
Very well, let us extend your logic.
It costs about 20 million to train a fighter pilot. We have a population of wannabe pilots. Half of the pilots have a highly likely to quit the air force 2 years after completing training. The other half of the pilots are highly likely to stay with the airforce for 20 years.
Do you: restrict jet fighter training to the people who will stay in the job or increase the amount of fighter pilots you train?
Do you get it now, or do I have to put it in simpler terms: money does not grow on trees.
If you're going to make up wildly unrealistic numbers, why didn't you come up with a comparison between 2 years, to 2 million years? "Pragmatism" that's not grounded in fact isn't very pragmatic.
And also, let's not forget that if you exclude half the population from becoming a pilot simply on the basis of what's between their legs, and pilots are selected based on competence... Half of your pilots are going to end up being less capable then the least capable pilot in a gender-blind society.
|
On December 21 2011 15:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 11:55 DoubleReed wrote:And women, just like men, are not ok with their spouse having sex with other people as part of instinct. Women put up with traditional polygamy because they were not considered equal. Women are frequently jealous and cruel to each other in traditional polygamous relationships. Polyamorous relationships work best when everyone involved is having sex with each other. It's hard to feel jealous about two people you love also loving each other. The stereotypical man in a MFF threesome is far from jealous when watching the two women pleasuring each other, and the same applies to other polyamorous configurations as long as there is some degree of bisexuality (or homosexuality in all-male or all-female relationships) involved. Clearly, heterosexuality is the problem.
Well obviously it's harder to be jealous of someone of the different sex. And obviously it's harder to be jealous if it's totally friggin' hot.
No, it is not hard to feel jealous about someone you love who also love each other. This is completely wrong. I don't really understand why you think that would have any kind of exception. Jealousy is instinctual. I'm not saying polyamorous relationships can't work, because they can. What I'm saying is that jealousy has to be deprogrammed.
Whereas iterracial/homosexual/polygamous couples, from all accounts, haven't been particularly keen on the destruction of society.
I disagree. Polygamy has historically been a completely misogynistic practice.
|
It had to be an American. Im sure this will cause British media to continue to portray Americans in a positive light. Anyways, im not sure if this is a win for America, but im gonna go ahead and declare victory. Go America! Bringing sexual liberation to the world.
|
On December 21 2011 23:41 treekiller wrote:
It had to be an American. Im sure this will cause British media to continue to portray Americans in a positive light. Anyways, im not sure if this is a win for America, but im gonna go ahead and declare victory. Go America! Bringing sexual liberation to the world.
Nation wide gay marriage legalized... *cough* 
|
On December 21 2011 22:00 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 15:43 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2011 11:55 DoubleReed wrote:And women, just like men, are not ok with their spouse having sex with other people as part of instinct. Women put up with traditional polygamy because they were not considered equal. Women are frequently jealous and cruel to each other in traditional polygamous relationships. Polyamorous relationships work best when everyone involved is having sex with each other. It's hard to feel jealous about two people you love also loving each other. The stereotypical man in a MFF threesome is far from jealous when watching the two women pleasuring each other, and the same applies to other polyamorous configurations as long as there is some degree of bisexuality (or homosexuality in all-male or all-female relationships) involved. Clearly, heterosexuality is the problem. Well obviously it's harder to be jealous of someone of the different sex. And obviously it's harder to be jealous if it's totally friggin' hot. No, it is not hard to feel jealous about someone you love who also love each other. This is completely wrong. I don't really understand why you think that would have any kind of exception. Jealousy is instinctual. I'm not saying polyamorous relationships can't work, because they can. What I'm saying is that jealousy has to be deprogrammed. Show nested quote +Whereas iterracial/homosexual/polygamous couples, from all accounts, haven't been particularly keen on the destruction of society. I disagree. Polygamy has historically been a completely misogynistic practice.
I think you misinterpreted both people you quote here. As to the first, he isn't just talking about someone you love having a mutual love with someone else. He's talking about two people you both love strongly also loving each other. Maybe you understood this but just misspoke. Obviously the situation could lead to jealously some of the time, but I think it's at least uncontroversial that the mutual set up described is less likely to result in jealousy then set ups where not all parties are mutually interacting.
As to the second, they're pretty clearly talking about the motives of various groups. Nightfall thinks religious organizations have the goal of limiting marriage to what they're comfortable with; Danglars thinks (perhaps for the sake of some misguided argument) that the actual goal of polygamists is the destruction of society. The historically negative effects of polygamy are irrelevant here. It's obvious that they are not in general trying to destroy society with their practice.
|
On December 22 2011 08:58 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 22:00 DoubleReed wrote:On December 21 2011 15:43 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2011 11:55 DoubleReed wrote:And women, just like men, are not ok with their spouse having sex with other people as part of instinct. Women put up with traditional polygamy because they were not considered equal. Women are frequently jealous and cruel to each other in traditional polygamous relationships. Polyamorous relationships work best when everyone involved is having sex with each other. It's hard to feel jealous about two people you love also loving each other. The stereotypical man in a MFF threesome is far from jealous when watching the two women pleasuring each other, and the same applies to other polyamorous configurations as long as there is some degree of bisexuality (or homosexuality in all-male or all-female relationships) involved. Clearly, heterosexuality is the problem. Well obviously it's harder to be jealous of someone of the different sex. And obviously it's harder to be jealous if it's totally friggin' hot. No, it is not hard to feel jealous about someone you love who also love each other. This is completely wrong. I don't really understand why you think that would have any kind of exception. Jealousy is instinctual. I'm not saying polyamorous relationships can't work, because they can. What I'm saying is that jealousy has to be deprogrammed. Whereas iterracial/homosexual/polygamous couples, from all accounts, haven't been particularly keen on the destruction of society. I disagree. Polygamy has historically been a completely misogynistic practice. I think you misinterpreted both people you quote here. As to the first, he isn't just talking about someone you love having a mutual love with someone else. He's talking about two people you both love strongly also loving each other. Maybe you understood this but just misspoke. Obviously the situation could lead to jealously some of the time, but I think it's at least uncontroversial that the mutual set up described is less likely to result in jealousy then set ups where not all parties are mutually interacting. As to the second, they're pretty clearly talking about the motives of various groups. Nightfall thinks religious organizations have the goal of limiting marriage to what they're comfortable with; Danglars thinks (perhaps for the sake of some misguided argument) that the actual goal of polygamists is the destruction of society. The historically negative effects of polygamy are irrelevant here. It's obvious that they are not in general trying to destroy society with their practice.
I just misspoke. Just because everything is mutual doesn't mean that jealousy doesn't enter into it or that jealousy somehow goes away. Such arrangements would still lend itself into thoughts of sexual inadequacy and 'betrayal' and all those other fun things. It may be less likely to be a problem, but personally I would hesitate to say that for certain.
As per the second... what???? What kind of conversation is that??
|
On December 22 2011 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:58 frogrubdown wrote:On December 21 2011 22:00 DoubleReed wrote:On December 21 2011 15:43 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2011 11:55 DoubleReed wrote:And women, just like men, are not ok with their spouse having sex with other people as part of instinct. Women put up with traditional polygamy because they were not considered equal. Women are frequently jealous and cruel to each other in traditional polygamous relationships. Polyamorous relationships work best when everyone involved is having sex with each other. It's hard to feel jealous about two people you love also loving each other. The stereotypical man in a MFF threesome is far from jealous when watching the two women pleasuring each other, and the same applies to other polyamorous configurations as long as there is some degree of bisexuality (or homosexuality in all-male or all-female relationships) involved. Clearly, heterosexuality is the problem. Well obviously it's harder to be jealous of someone of the different sex. And obviously it's harder to be jealous if it's totally friggin' hot. No, it is not hard to feel jealous about someone you love who also love each other. This is completely wrong. I don't really understand why you think that would have any kind of exception. Jealousy is instinctual. I'm not saying polyamorous relationships can't work, because they can. What I'm saying is that jealousy has to be deprogrammed. Whereas iterracial/homosexual/polygamous couples, from all accounts, haven't been particularly keen on the destruction of society. I disagree. Polygamy has historically been a completely misogynistic practice. I think you misinterpreted both people you quote here. As to the first, he isn't just talking about someone you love having a mutual love with someone else. He's talking about two people you both love strongly also loving each other. Maybe you understood this but just misspoke. Obviously the situation could lead to jealously some of the time, but I think it's at least uncontroversial that the mutual set up described is less likely to result in jealousy then set ups where not all parties are mutually interacting. As to the second, they're pretty clearly talking about the motives of various groups. Nightfall thinks religious organizations have the goal of limiting marriage to what they're comfortable with; Danglars thinks (perhaps for the sake of some misguided argument) that the actual goal of polygamists is the destruction of society. The historically negative effects of polygamy are irrelevant here. It's obvious that they are not in general trying to destroy society with their practice. I just misspoke. Just because everything is mutual doesn't mean that jealousy doesn't enter into it or that jealousy somehow goes away. Such arrangements would still lend itself into thoughts of sexual inadequacy and 'betrayal' and all those other fun things. It may be less likely to be a problem, but personally I would hesitate to say that for certain. As per the second... what???? What kind of conversation is that??
Eh, I know people in polyamorous relationships. Sometimes there's multiple women, sometimes multiple men, sometimes there's more than 3 people. They say jealousy simply doesn't happen between them, or that they've all learned to cope with it and love each other equally. Sometimes they say that there are "primary" partners and "secondary" partners.
I can't relate to it personally, and I sure wouldn't want to share a man with someone, but if it works for them, have at it. People are pretty quick to say "I could never get over jealousy, therefore no one could." Polygymous relationships are pretty alien to me, but who am I to tell other people how to run their relationship?
|
Danglars thinks (perhaps for the sake of some misguided argument) that the actual goal of polygamists is the destruction of society.
I'm out of this thread, now. Was trying to point out the absurdity of another's argument (insecurity of religious establishments alone is a major reason polygamy is opposed) by being absurd. Since the esteemed frogrubdown cannot grasp the back-and-forth that occurred there, I have nothing more to offer that can be helpful.
|
On December 21 2011 16:02 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 15:50 Tor wrote:You see, the thing is, spots in medical schools are highly limited, and thus it is in the best interest of society to train those who are going to use the training, than those who do not. What is better return on investment? A doctor that works full time for 5 years once training is complete, then works part time, maybe returning to full time work when the kids are grown, until 65? Or a doctor that works full time and over time from the day he finished training until the day he retires of old age? (Ireland has 60% of its female doctors working full time by at age 40, compared with 95% of its male doctors, with the male doctors also working considerably higher hours than female full time doctors. I like how you say the limiting factor is the amount of spots in medical school (completely unrelated to women) and you suggest that the answer is to remove women rather than create more spots. Very well, let us extend your logic. It costs about 20 million to train a fighter pilot. We have a population of wannabe pilots. Half of the pilots have a highly likely to quit the air force 2 years after completing training. The other half of the pilots are highly likely to stay with the airforce for 20 years. Do you: restrict jet fighter training to the people who will stay in the job or increase the amount of fighter pilots you train? Do you get it now, or do I have to put it in simpler terms: money does not grow on trees.
Fighter pilots are trained based on their qualifications, it's impossible to tell if they're going to quit after their contract is up, The same can be said about women in the workforce.
What you are actually arguing is: affirmative action based programs are denying the best candidates from entering medical school and due to limited funding not all doctors can be trained. This doesn't really appear to reflect irelands issue but I admit I haven't looked deeply into the matter.
http://www.topnews.in/health/ireland-hospitals-face-doctor-shortage-212741
This link and many others like it suggest the problem is a shortage of junior doctors. period.
It seems to me, the problem isn't training inefficient doctors, but not training enough doctors.
The problem with advocating for selectively picking men over women (because of the possibility of men having better work habits) is an incredibly complex dilemma. On the one hand, women and men are different, however, forcing specific lifestyles on the sexes creates division that could be quite unhealthy for at least one of the sexes. It's a very dangerous approach to adopt.
It's possible denying women from applying to medical school so that men who otherwise didn't get the position would get it afterall. However, I find it unlikely many qualified men are being denied medical school. Add to this, you are only putting a temporary bandage on the problem as more doctors will need to be hired regardless (an effect that wouldn't even come into play until a single generation has gone through).
In short, denying women from going to med school is an incredibly short sighted approach to a highly complex issue that may not even have a serious effect period, and in the long run could be detrimental to your future workforce (due to side effects caused by anti feminist bias).
Not sure why this is even being discussed in a polygamy thread.
On the topic of polygamy, I don't think anyone has been convicted of polygamy in either Canada or the US in a long time. The concept of marriage is kind of nonsensical from a government standpoint if the government isn't providing any benefits for the married couple anyways. Polygamy is basically legal and in Canada it's widely accepted to just convict polygamists on other crimes such as statutory rape etc. Polygamy is a fairly good argument against governments having a say in marriage in the first place. Frankly, marriage, as supported by the government, is best used to facilitate stable parenting relationships and to provide parents with economic incentives to make up for the burden of the cost of children.
|
On December 19 2011 00:21 theBALLS wrote:Not for Islam. Up to 4 wives you can have, at least in my side of the globe.
Dude if I convert can I marry four women? Awesome
|
On December 22 2011 18:39 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 16:02 vetinari wrote:On December 21 2011 15:50 Tor wrote:You see, the thing is, spots in medical schools are highly limited, and thus it is in the best interest of society to train those who are going to use the training, than those who do not. What is better return on investment? A doctor that works full time for 5 years once training is complete, then works part time, maybe returning to full time work when the kids are grown, until 65? Or a doctor that works full time and over time from the day he finished training until the day he retires of old age? (Ireland has 60% of its female doctors working full time by at age 40, compared with 95% of its male doctors, with the male doctors also working considerably higher hours than female full time doctors. I like how you say the limiting factor is the amount of spots in medical school (completely unrelated to women) and you suggest that the answer is to remove women rather than create more spots. Very well, let us extend your logic. It costs about 20 million to train a fighter pilot. We have a population of wannabe pilots. Half of the pilots have a highly likely to quit the air force 2 years after completing training. The other half of the pilots are highly likely to stay with the airforce for 20 years. Do you: restrict jet fighter training to the people who will stay in the job or increase the amount of fighter pilots you train? Do you get it now, or do I have to put it in simpler terms: money does not grow on trees. Fighter pilots are trained based on their qualifications, it's impossible to tell if they're going to quit after their contract is up, The same can be said about women in the workforce. What you are actually arguing is: affirmative action based programs are denying the best candidates from entering medical school and due to limited funding not all doctors can be trained. This doesn't really appear to reflect irelands issue but I admit I haven't looked deeply into the matter. http://www.topnews.in/health/ireland-hospitals-face-doctor-shortage-212741This link and many others like it suggest the problem is a shortage of junior doctors. period. It seems to me, the problem isn't training inefficient doctors, but not training enough doctors. The problem with advocating for selectively picking men over women (because of the possibility of men having better work habits) is an incredibly complex dilemma. On the one hand, women and men are different, however, forcing specific lifestyles on the sexes creates division that could be quite unhealthy for at least one of the sexes. It's a very dangerous approach to adopt. It's possible denying women from applying to medical school so that men who otherwise didn't get the position would get it afterall. However, I find it unlikely many qualified men are being denied medical school. Add to this, you are only putting a temporary bandage on the problem as more doctors will need to be hired regardless (an effect that wouldn't even come into play until a single generation has gone through). In short, denying women from going to med school is an incredibly short sighted approach to a highly complex issue that may not even have a serious effect period, and in the long run could be detrimental to your future workforce (due to side effects caused by anti feminist bias). Not sure why this is even being discussed in a polygamy thread. On the topic of polygamy, I don't think anyone has been convicted of polygamy in either Canada or the US in a long time. The concept of marriage is kind of nonsensical from a government standpoint if the government isn't providing any benefits for the married couple anyways. Polygamy is basically legal and in Canada it's widely accepted to just convict polygamists on other crimes such as statutory rape etc. Polygamy is a fairly good argument against governments having a say in marriage in the first place. Frankly, marriage, as supported by the government, is best used to facilitate stable parenting relationships and to provide parents with economic incentives to make up for the burden of the cost of children.
And adding to that it's a stupid argument. If someone wants to argue that women shouldn't be allowed to be fighter pilots based on some general (not absolute) difference between the genders, why stop there? You can certainly find similar corralations with other factors if you just look at the men based on living condition, personality traits and so on. Should we also start banning for those reasons? Why even bother to look at the individual when we can just point at a stat cheat and tell them to fuck off because how it tells us how they might behave in 10 years time.
|
On December 22 2011 15:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Danglars thinks (perhaps for the sake of some misguided argument) that the actual goal of polygamists is the destruction of society. I'm out of this thread, now. Was trying to point out the absurdity of another's argument (insecurity of religious establishments alone is a major reason polygamy is opposed) by being absurd. Since the esteemed frogrubdown cannot grasp the back-and-forth that occurred there, I have nothing more to offer that can be helpful.
Uh, that's exactly what I said you were doing: claiming something ridiculous for the sake of argument. The reason it failed is that religious organizations' problems with certain types of marriage actually are one of the main reasons for those types of marriages not existing. If you could have come up with an analogy that had as much truth in it as that, then you would have succeeded. But you didn't, you made up something that had practically no correspondence to the real world. Nightfall already pointed this out.
edit: For that matter he was pretty explicit about it not being the sole reason. For one thing he listed two reasons; for another, he never claimed they were exhaustive.
|
On December 22 2011 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:58 frogrubdown wrote:On December 21 2011 22:00 DoubleReed wrote:On December 21 2011 15:43 sunprince wrote:On December 21 2011 11:55 DoubleReed wrote:And women, just like men, are not ok with their spouse having sex with other people as part of instinct. Women put up with traditional polygamy because they were not considered equal. Women are frequently jealous and cruel to each other in traditional polygamous relationships. Polyamorous relationships work best when everyone involved is having sex with each other. It's hard to feel jealous about two people you love also loving each other. The stereotypical man in a MFF threesome is far from jealous when watching the two women pleasuring each other, and the same applies to other polyamorous configurations as long as there is some degree of bisexuality (or homosexuality in all-male or all-female relationships) involved. Clearly, heterosexuality is the problem. Well obviously it's harder to be jealous of someone of the different sex. And obviously it's harder to be jealous if it's totally friggin' hot. No, it is not hard to feel jealous about someone you love who also love each other. This is completely wrong. I don't really understand why you think that would have any kind of exception. Jealousy is instinctual. I'm not saying polyamorous relationships can't work, because they can. What I'm saying is that jealousy has to be deprogrammed. Whereas iterracial/homosexual/polygamous couples, from all accounts, haven't been particularly keen on the destruction of society. I disagree. Polygamy has historically been a completely misogynistic practice. I think you misinterpreted both people you quote here. As to the first, he isn't just talking about someone you love having a mutual love with someone else. He's talking about two people you both love strongly also loving each other. Maybe you understood this but just misspoke. Obviously the situation could lead to jealously some of the time, but I think it's at least uncontroversial that the mutual set up described is less likely to result in jealousy then set ups where not all parties are mutually interacting. As to the second, they're pretty clearly talking about the motives of various groups. Nightfall thinks religious organizations have the goal of limiting marriage to what they're comfortable with; Danglars thinks (perhaps for the sake of some misguided argument) that the actual goal of polygamists is the destruction of society. The historically negative effects of polygamy are irrelevant here. It's obvious that they are not in general trying to destroy society with their practice. I just misspoke. Just because everything is mutual doesn't mean that jealousy doesn't enter into it or that jealousy somehow goes away. Such arrangements would still lend itself into thoughts of sexual inadequacy and 'betrayal' and all those other fun things. It may be less likely to be a problem, but personally I would hesitate to say that for certain. As per the second... what???? What kind of conversation is that??
A pointless one.
|
On December 21 2011 22:00 DoubleReed wrote:No, it is not hard to feel jealous about someone you love who also love each other. This is completely wrong. I don't really understand why you think that would have any kind of exception. Jealousy is instinctual. I'm not saying polyamorous relationships can't work, because they can. What I'm saying is that jealousy has to be deprogrammed.
As noted by frogrubdown, my point is that it's pretty much impossible to feel jealous about two people banging each other when you're banging both of them.
The closest example I can draw for a heterosexual male (which I assume you are given the typical TL demographics), is that you would never be jealous if two girls you're sleeping with are also doing each other. Similarly, a heterosexual female will not feel jealous if two guys she's sleeping with also sleep with each other. The same extends to a bisexual male/female sleeping with any two people, or a homosexual male/female sleeping with two other people of the same sex.
Unless you have extreme issues with jealousy/possesiveness, it simply doesn't make sense to find two of your lovers doing each other anything except frickin' hot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
