|
On December 19 2011 06:33 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote:On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa. Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes. Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful. It mostly depends on wether you believe that: a. Human beings have evolved from primates. b. Basic human instincts are close to the same as their predecessors, albit hidden.
I used to think that people who thought like this were made up as strawmen in arguments against the more extravagant conclusions of evolutionary psychology. Apparently, these strawmen exist and have absolutely flooded this thread with sexist nonsense.
Do you people know any women at all? Any? No woman I know would even think of entering into a massively polygamous marriage with some random rich male who used his power to collect attractive women. Not a single one.
Do such women exist at all? Presumably, and there are also presumably corresponding men who would act in a parallel fashion. So legalizing polygamy might result in a slight decrease in the number of women eligible for marriage to the non-rich. However,
1) I find it immensely implausible to suppose that the number would be significant enough to be noticeable by the typical male.
2) Why would one want to be with a woman who would respond to the legalization of polygamy in such a shallow way?
3) People who think like this should probably be more concerned about how their sexist and simplistically reductionist worldview affects their chances at finding a mate.
|
I don't see the issue if it's consentual adults wanting to live together but the people who write the laws don't see it that way.
|
Ofcourse it's legal. The guy's only married to one of the women, so basically he's just cheating on his wife. Cheating on your wife is fully legal.
|
Seriously though, concentrate discussion on polygamy, not polygyny.
|
On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote: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.
"If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!"
That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person.
|
On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote: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.
1. child abuses will occur in a legal atmosphere or illegal. redundant, and laws against abuse will trump any legality or illegality. Its really about control via old time christianity. Don't put the new age spin on it. Also, if you want to tie it to kids getting married off to cult leaders, throughout europe 12-14 year old girls were often married off to kings and other nobles by Christianity up until very recently. The individuals responsible for the anti-polygamy law didn't give two shits about the marriage of child to man issue. Look up when the law was actually passed. You can't claim is for reason X when it was really for reason Y and reason X wasn't even an issue when the law was introduced. that's bad ethics.
|
I approve of this. Studies show that 50% of people in a relationship cheat.
|
On December 19 2011 07:13 K9GM3 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. "If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!" That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person.
That is how it works, read the articles* I linked earlier by actual professors of anthropology who has studied things like this for over 10 years, or should I trust your uncanny insight into human psychology? The reason people want monogamous marriage NOW is because we've had these rules for close to 2000 years in the west and a social stigma has been developed. With time and legalization it would become more common again. When it has been "tested" during history it has undoubtedly failed. Even Islam which is the only larger society that allows polygamy limits it to 4 wifes per man. People like Moulay Ismail (note that he was muslim, and only had 4 wives but over 500 concubines, what we call the union does not matter) are the result of polygamy.
People who make statements like "my female friends would never do that!" has no real weight since they have been conditioned by culture to think that way, it is essentially proven that in primitive human society, females flocked to the dominant males, just like all other mammals. This was controlled in the very simple Hunter & Gatherer style societies by men ganging up on the leaders if they had too many women, as soon as we settled in villages polygamy started becoming a problem however and was subsequently outlawed.
TL; DR: There is actual historical evidence that polygamy leads to an unstable society.
*Koch, John; Kickasola, Joseph N, Polygamy: A matter for public law or private policy (available on ProQuest)
|
Thank god polygamy is illegal where I live! Otherwise my wife would have NEVER married my non-millionaire self, and I'd be forced to resort to joining up with other virgins to take my rightful property from the 1% with violence. By legally restraining her desires, we ensure the stability of society!
/jokethread
|
Doubled, again you're bringing up examples from hundreds of years ago. In those times, women simply didn't have other options, and so being a concubine offered a comfortable life compared with being a peasant in the fields or a whore in the streets.
|
On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote: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.
Yeah I might kill someone if they were hording women for themselves. Over time I could only grow bitter at what I don't have.
[QUOTE]On December 19 2011 07:18 Humanfails wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal [/QUOTE]
1. child abuses will occur in a legal atmosphere or illegal. redundant, and laws against abuse will trump any legality or illegality. Its really about control via old time christianity. Don't put the new age spin on it. Also, if you want to tie it to kids getting married off to cult leaders, throughout europe 12-14 year old girls were often married off to kings and other nobles by Christianity up until very recently. The individuals responsible for the anti-polygamy law didn't give two shits about the marriage of child to man issue. Look up when the law was actually passed. You can't claim is for reason X when it was really for reason Y and reason X wasn't even an issue when the law was introduced. that's bad ethics.[/QUOTE]
WTF is reason X? I don't have time for algebra I failed math in school alright well passed it but it was hard.
Ps. the moment I read reason X I had no idea what I was reading anymore.
|
On December 19 2011 07:38 doubled wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 07:13 K9GM3 wrote: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. "If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!" That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person. That is how it works, read the articles* I linked earlier by actual professors of anthropology who has studied things like this for over 10 years, or should I trust your uncanny insight into human psychology? The reason people want monogamous marriage NOW is because we've had these rules for close to 2000 years in the west and a social stigma has been developed. With time and legalization it would become more common again. When it has been "tested" during history it has undoubtedly failed. Even Islam which is the only larger society that allows polygamy limits it to 4 wifes per man. People like Moulay Ismail (note that he was muslim, and only had 4 wives but over 500 concubines, what we call the union does not matter) are the result of polygamy. People who make statements like "my female friends would never do that!" has no real weight since they have been conditioned by culture to think that way, it is essentially proven that in primitive human society, females flocked to the dominant males, just like all other mammals. This was controlled in the very simple Hunter & Gatherer style societies by men ganging up on the leaders if they had too many women, as soon as we settled in villages polygamy started becoming a problem however and was subsequently outlawed. TL; DR: There is actual historical evidence that polygamy leads to an unstable society. *Koch, John; Kickasola, Joseph N, Polygamy: A matter for public law or private policy (available on ProQuest)
I think you're misunderstanding the portion of the thread that thinks polygamy should be legal. We are not (at least not most of us) denying the anthropological explanation for why our society and many others have come to practice monogamy. What we are claiming is that the negative effects of polygamy that anthropologists document are primarily a result of the sexist structures present in the society and not necessarily a cause of it (though it certainly may have exacerbated things).
If that's right, then the proposed extrapolation from past results to our own case is unwarranted. We certainly haven't fully overcome sexism, but I think that women in western cultures now have enough opportunities open to them that legalized polygamy wouldn't have the results you forecast.
|
On December 19 2011 06:46 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 06:40 Defacer wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal Your question reminds me of the late great Hitch -- as in Christopher Hitchens, not the semi-magical fictionalPUA played by Will Smith. ![[image loading]](http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2011/12/16/11/enhanced-buzz-27535-1324053506-104.jpg) It's not a comprehensive answer, but it introduces the perspective that polygamy is almost always associated with a belief system that includes the ownership or repression of women. Polygamy isn't necessarily 'amoral' between consenting adults such as the OP, but the reality is most polygamy exists in communities were women are considered sub-human. So what is the answer for why in a society where women have numerous rights and resources for independence, polygamy is illegal? Why would you restrict such a woman's right to choose for herself? You can argue that in your opinion that the woman has self-esteem issues and made a wrong choice that led to her repression (even if consenting) etc., but I hope you see the problem in a government banning individual choices because they think those choices are stupid or wrong.
I'm not arguing, just addressing mdb's question. I think people should be able to consent to being in a polygamous relationship. I'm just pointing out that there is overlap between polygamy and social issues related to women's rights -- which is maybe one of the reasons why it is illegal, and that its taboo status isn't necessarily bad for society as a whole.
But yeah, they should revisit this law. Someone else in this thread said it better, but if we were in a true democracy it would be a women's choice to enter whatever relationship she wanted.
Edited: for shit spelling and grammar.
|
On December 19 2011 07:47 Haemonculus wrote:
Doubled, again you're bringing up examples from hundreds of years ago. In those times, women simply didn't have other options, and so being a concubine offered a comfortable life compared with being a peasant in the fields or a whore in the streets.
Fair point, we really don't know if women's situation have changed so much that they now would choose mates differently now. But since there is no evidence to support that they would (is their situation that different, women have always been working?), I would default to the proven conclusion.
I was going to post some further argumentation, then I realized I was on the internet and I'm not going to change anyways mind anyways. 
On December 19 2011 07:51 frogrubdown wrote:
If that's right, then the proposed extrapolation from past results to our own case is unwarranted. We certainly haven't fully overcome sexism, but I think that women in western cultures now have enough opportunities open to them that legalized polygamy wouldn't have the results you forecast.
Perhaps, but that seems like an incredibly dangerous experiment in the name of liberty, as a few generations would be fucked over by a decision like that in the long run (Edit: if you're wrong, otherwise it's just green meadows ahead!).
|
On December 19 2011 08:02 doubled wrote:
Fair point, we really don't know if women's situation have changed so much that they now would choose mates differently now. But since there is no evidence to support that they would (is their situation that different, women have always been working?), I would default to the proven conclusion.
Has biology changed in the past few hundred years? Precious little, if at all.
Have social norms and standards changed as the result of the rise of industrialization starting, say, late 1700s to the early 1800s? Absolutely.
It's hardly a "proven conclusion" to use societies completely different from the modern template as the default.
|
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote:
I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be,
Marriage has nothing to do with nature, it is an almost entirely human construct.
|
I'm not arguing, just addressing mdb's question. I think people should be able to consent to being a polygamous relationship. I'm just pointing out that there is overlap between polygamy and social issues related to women's rights -- which is may be why one of the reasons it as illegalized, and that it's illegalization wasn't necessarily so bad for society as a whole.
But yeah, they should revisit this law. Someone else in this thread said it better, but if we were in a true democracy it would be a women's choice to enter whatever relationship she wanted.
Polygamy is a mixed bag, for every happy "sister wife" there's one who has been damaged by it, for every normal community that happens to be polygamous there is an FLDS with Warren Jeffs to match it somewhere. There's also the issue historically and recently of polygamists marrying and having sex with very underage girls.
Personally I don't favor it because I don't think you can have the same full experience of love if you're dividing that intimacy and companionship instead of giving it all to one other, but if other people want to try it whatever, as long as they aren't marrying their 12 year-old daughters too.
|
:Edit: - Moot point, Mod please delete.
|
On December 19 2011 08:02 doubled wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 07:47 Haemonculus wrote:
Doubled, again you're bringing up examples from hundreds of years ago. In those times, women simply didn't have other options, and so being a concubine offered a comfortable life compared with being a peasant in the fields or a whore in the streets. Fair point, we really don't know if women's situation have changed so much that they now would choose mates differently now. But since there is no evidence to support that they would (is their situation that different, women have always been working?), I would default to the proven conclusion. I was going to post some further argumentation, then I realized I was on the internet and I'm not going to change anyways mind anyways. Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 07:51 frogrubdown wrote:
If that's right, then the proposed extrapolation from past results to our own case is unwarranted. We certainly haven't fully overcome sexism, but I think that women in western cultures now have enough opportunities open to them that legalized polygamy wouldn't have the results you forecast.
Perhaps, but that seems like an incredibly dangerous experiment in the name of liberty, as a few generations would be fucked over by a decision like that in the long run (Edit: if you're wrong, otherwise it's just green meadows ahead!).
I'll just second Acker's point that you have an unreasonable amount of faith in the degree to which the evidence you cite makes it likely that polygamy will destroy our civilization. All of your cases are taken from societies with nowhere near our levels of freedom and opportunity. The state of even monogamous marriage in such cultures is deeply troubling by our own standards. I don't think that either of these facts says much about how things will work here and now.
|
On December 19 2011 07:13 K9GM3 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. "If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!" That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person.
Except that not everybody in the world is gay....Though almost everybody in the world has an interest in sex/marriage. Do you see, now, why your attempt at a slippery slope doesn't work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
