There is an interesting news and court case that I had been following in the UK these past few weeks.
The story touches on multiple issues pertaining to family, law, human rights, and religious orientation. The story goes that an 25 year old American woman named Emily DiSanto, is living with a couple, the Caulfields, in UK - as a girlfriend to the husband. Their family, has two children, one to each woman.
The UK Home Office has orders to deport the American due to polygamy but DiSanto won the case based on "human rights" consideration, specifically her right to live where she chooses as can be supported by her religious orientations. The three, DiSanto and the Cauldfields are pagans, specifically Odinist. The Cauldfields claim that it is forbidden for them to divorce (although Odinic Rights, UK Odin sect, allows divorce, so it is not knows what sect or variation the couple practice).
This has been the crucial circumstance that reversed the Home Office initial orders, and now allows DiSanto to stay in the UK, despite polygamy being illegal in the country. (There is so much to this story so please read the full report below or browse the dailies if you're in UK or EU.)
Are there any lawyers, law students, or anyone well-versed in the philosophy of Law here in TL? How does this affect the legal philosophy governing ponencias on culture-based cases? More importantly, how will this affect the multitude of other cases of immigration in the UK. Will this set a dangerous precedent to future cases given the ambivalence it created in the spirit of existing laws? Or is it a liberator of unchecked biases that found its way into law?
Pagan wins 'family life' human rights case An American woman who worships Norse gods has won the right to stay in Britain because of her “family life” with her boyfriend and his wife.
Home Office officials told Emily DiSanto, 25, that they would not grant her permission to stay in Britain because the law bans what are in effect polygamous relationships.
But now she has won an extraordinary legal case in which she was allowed to remain here on the basis of her human right to family life.
The 25-year-old now shares Alan and Anne-Marie Caulfield’s marital home in south-east London with his two children – one by each of the women.
The American's lawyer told the court that their religious beliefs bar the Caulfields from divorcing.
Immigration judges were also told that forcing her to leave the country would affect the wellbeing of Mrs Caulfield’s son, as well as her own young daughter.
The case is the latest example of how human rights laws are being used to overturn the decisions of civil servants and ministers in immigration cases in what critics say are dubious circumstances.
It comes as pressure mounts on the Government to reform human rights laws, which many Conservative backbenchers say are threatening to make permanent and undemocratic changes to the rule of law in Britain.
The latest case shows the definition of family life is now widening far beyond the conventional couple with children and has implications for immigrants who believe in polygamy, which is still practised in parts of the Muslim world and – illegally – by breakaway branches of the Mormon religions in the United States.
Miss DiSanto’s application succeeded after the Home Office dropped its objection on the grounds of bigamy, and she made two appeals.
In the course of the appeals, her lawyer said the Caulfields no longer had a sexual relationship but could not divorce on religious grounds, as all three worship the Norse gods, including Odin and Thor.
Odinists claim to follow the beliefs practised by Vikings in Britain and Scandinavia, and some Anglo-Saxons in Britain, before Christianity became the sole religion in the course of the Dark Ages.
Followers worship Odin, the chief god of Norse mythology and worship in groups known as Hearths, performing ceremonies called Blothars in which their gods are honoured by drinking mead – an alcoholic drink made from honey – from an animal horn and reciting poetry.
The main branch of British Odinism – the Odinic Rite – does permit divorce, but it is unclear if the three follow its beliefs or have their own variation on them.
It is believed civil servants simply could not prove Miss DiSanto was involved in polygamy when they tried to fight her appeal.
Ian Macdonald QC, president of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, said: “There is no law against threesomes. For many people such a thing may be morally objectionable but it is not unlawful.
“I think the original decision to cite polygamy as a reason to refuse permission was probably that of a junior official which, further up the chain, was recognised to be unsustainable.
“It would have been kicked out by any court.”
Miss DiSanto, from Chicago, arrived in Britain on a visitor’s visa in December that year, already pregnant with Mr Caulfield’s baby. They met in April 2008, but it is not known how.
She gave birth to a daughter in July the following year and now lives with Mr Caulfield, 29, and his 28-year-old wife, who works as a nanny, in a three-bedroomed semi-detached property in Eltham, south-east London.
When her visa expired, she applied for permission to remain and claimed her family life would be disrupted if she was forced to leave.
The Home Office pointed out that she was at least three months’ pregnant with Mr Caulfield’s child when she came to Britain, which “cast doubt on your intention to leave in time”, and refused her application.
Officials said their decision was justified because “polygamy is illegal in the UK and the Secretary of State is entitled to prevent de facto situations arising which are akin to polygamous marriage”.
Miss DiSanto launched an appeal, which the Government won.
The American citizen then brought another appeal to the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.
There, judges were told Mr and Mrs Caulfield were no longer living as man and wife, but continued to share a home because their Odinist beliefs prevent them from divorcing.
Her lawyer argued the judge failed to take into account how their family life would be affected if she was required to go back to the United States and make a new visa application.
Upper Tribunal Judges Bernard Dawson and Catriona Jarvis ruled that it would be disproportionate to require her to leave Britain.
All three declined to comment on the court’s ruling.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We are disappointed by the court’s decision in this case.
“For too long Article 8 has been used to place the family rights of immigration offenders above the rights of the British public.
“This is why we will change the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.”
The 2001 census recorded 40,000 pagans in Britain but it is not known how many of those categorised themselves as Odinist.
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.
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.
There is no doubt about the womans rights as of now. I'm not a law student but this either forces changes to immigrant laws or marriage laws that is for sure. Also it should not be legal anywhere to make exceptions for religious people only. That is fucking retarded. Makes effectively anyone else second grade citizens. There is a system like that in Finland, and the fact it's not talked about makes me not even give a chance to our politicians.
Therefore I doubt it's allowed to stay like this, governments don't like letting their grasp on peoples lives and freedoms to slip.
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.
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.
It certainly isn't stopping cults from destroying children. And religious organizations should have no say on people who don't belong in their cult.
That's like Apple suing you for violating user rights for services you haven't used.
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.
So marriage is just a system to force women act against their nature? LOL But well I guess if prostitution was legalized 80% of men wouldn't even give shit about a stable sex partner.
But that would be just guessing, also you are making theories about things we have very little experience of in the modern western world. In the societies where polygamy is normal marriage is rarely invoked by the women?
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.
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.
Are you saying women just want money?
No, he's saying more than 50% of the women just want money.
The "poor men left single" argument only applies to the women powerful people would desire.
If you let that process advance over a few generations, you would probably get powerful beatiful people and ugly poor people. That said, with polygamy applied, humanity would develop a huge classist society.
Just a few thoughts.
Edit: And yes, women are very interested in your socioeconomic status as a man, and a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.90 lol, being clothed in an expensive way makes you reasonably more attractive to them.
I can't say if it's innate though, there are societies ruled by women...where men have low socioeconomic status, one of them is in mexico. You can find it on youtube.
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.
Polygamy laws are the only thing stopping me from shacking up with some millionaire and being a concubine, that's for sure.
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.
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 think u are right. instead of not meddling with whoever wants to live with whom and how many, its good that rules like that basically force people to marry others that they wouldn't want to marry under normal circumstances. society basically says you can't marry someone who is married already and it also says that one HAS to marry. the later may not be an explicit rule, it exists nonetheless. why not put guns to peoples heads so that everyone gets married (once!).
/irony off
so instead of fixing the problem that there may be / could be only a small percentage of people who are the only ones able to grant a sophisticated live to their mates due to the way economics work, your suggestion is to basically leave the economic imbalance untouched and instead make sure that rich people only get one mate, and the poor will find themselves other poor mates thereby reproducing given economical imbalances.
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
Don't be so naive. Marriage as an institution has changed innumerable times down the ages. For most of the last few thousand years it's been constantly used as a means to solidify political and monetary ties between families. Only very recently has it been to be solely in the domain of two (and occasionally more) people who love eachother.
Marriage has no "sanctity" or hard-set rules, only the society in which it happens determines its role.
Isn't the general problem with polygamy that, in it essence, it is not an equal relationship between husband(s) and wife/wives. I mean, when we talk about polygamy we are (in 99% of the cases) talking about men with multiple wives, where it only reinforces subjugation. You're only one of my wives, but I'm your only husband.
I have no problem with the 'community' version, where lets more then 2 people all marry eachother and there is a measure of equality, but that's not what we are talking about when discussing polygamy.
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
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.
It certainly isn't stopping cults from destroying children. And religious organizations should have no say on people who don't belong in their cult.
That's like Apple suing you for violating user rights for services you haven't used.
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.
So marriage is just a system to force women act against their nature? LOL But well I guess if prostitution was legalized 80% of men wouldn't even give shit about a stable sex partner.
Why do you say that? Prostitution has been legal for thousand of years and definitely more than 20% of males gave a shit, no reason they would stop nowadays.
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.
That's a bold claim. Do you have proof for that?
Here are some research article on the subject, you can get them via ProQuest if you have a subscription (usually via your university):
Koch, John; Kickasola, Joseph N, Polygamy: A matter for public law or private policy - Best article I found on the subject by far.
Loughead, Lisa, The perception of polygamy in early modern England - Goes over the causes briefly, and also explains the causes for it being illegal in current society.
Some free articles on the matter, these are informal though.
Disclaimer: Only skimmed the articles, better than wiki though.
Edit2: Tried to find something on how China is pretty much fucked as they have 100~ million men left over who won't be able to find women to marry, and why this is a huge problem for society (hordes sexually frustrated men... you only need to start up COD to find out what that is like) but seems not much has been written about it yet.
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.
That's a bold claim. Do you have proof for that?
Here are some research article on the subject, you can get them via ProQuest if you have a subscription (usually via your university):
Koch, John; Kickasola, Joseph N, Polygamy: A matter for public law or private policy - Best article I found on the subject by far.
Loughead, Lisa, The perception of polygamy in early modern England - Goes over the causes briefly, and also explains the causes for it being illegal in current society.
Some free articles on the matter, these are informal though.
Disclaimer: Only skimmed the articles, better than wiki though.
Edit2: Tried to find something on how China is pretty much fucked as they have 100~ million men left over who won't be able to find women to marry, and why this is a huge problem for society (hordes sexually frustrated men... you only need to start up COD to find out what that is like) but seems not much has been written about it yet.
Cool, thanks for the articles. It is an interesting idea, although it doesn't seem to imply that the idea is to let everyone have a chance (the poor single farmer) but rather that it becomes difficult to repress the violence of the young. Those without tend to violence against those with and thus polygamy would seem to encourage this type of violence. I wonder how that would relate to our more modern world since physical strength and wealth of food are no longer as important as they were in ancient societies.
Cool, thanks for the articles. It is an interesting idea, although it doesn't seem to imply that the idea is to let everyone have a chance (the poor single farmer) but rather that it becomes difficult to repress the violence of the young. Those without tend to violence against those with and thus polygamy would seem to encourage this type of violence. I wonder how that would relate to our more modern world since physical strength and wealth of food are no longer as important as they were in ancient societies.
Well as I said, we'll find out in a few years with China (or Thailand or wherever they will import their wives from).
Do keep in mind though in this discussion that the women in question are you know, people, and not simply a commodity with which to placate otherwise violent youth.
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.
Lol evolution shouldn't allow everybody to get a mate. Legalize polygamy!!!
On December 19 2011 01:26 Haemonculus wrote: Do keep in mind though in this discussion that the women in question are you know, people, and not simply a commodity with which to placate otherwise violent youth.
I don't think the implication was that women were a commodity. Rather, the argument goes that people naturally form hierarchical societies, whether they male or female dominated, and that those in the top have a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. If you are a member of the secondary gender (commonly women, although sometimes men), you will want to associate yourself with those in power for your own benefit or for the benefit of your family.
The youth will generally be more likely to upheave the status quo, and they are likely to desire a change if they see their own rise as difficult to attain, which in a classic power structure is always going to be difficult.
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.
Lol evolution shouldn't allow everybody to get a mate. Legalize polygamy!!!
I'm not sure if farmers are the ideal target for natural selection. We might run out of food.
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.
Wow, that is one perspective I've never even considered before!
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
Not for Islam.
Up to 4 wives you can have, at least in my side of the globe.
isn't it more like you can have as many wives as you want as long as you can give every wife the same support?
Its actually both of you 2 together , you are allowed up to 4 as long as you can treat them equally and support them as long as you (the man) have a legit reason for doing so , something most Muslims forget.
Personally speaking , I aint got nothing against polygamy as long as the woman has no problem with it .
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.
what if there are more men then women? or the other way around? to ensure everyone gets a single mate, are we going to kill babys?
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.
what if there are more men then women? or the other way around? to ensure everyone gets a single mate, are we going to kill babys?
That's actually the main reason its allowed in Islam. During those times, because of how violent Arabia was, men used to die out plenty. So there tended to be more women then men, and so polygamy was allowed to ensure everyone has the change to get a mate
On December 19 2011 01:26 Haemonculus wrote: Do keep in mind though in this discussion that the women in question are you know, people, and not simply a commodity with which to placate otherwise violent youth.
I don't think the implication was that women were a commodity. Rather, the argument goes that people naturally form hierarchical societies, whether they male or female dominated, and that those in the top have a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. If you are a member of the secondary gender (commonly women, although sometimes men), you will want to associate yourself with those in power for your own benefit or for the benefit of your family.
The youth will generally be more likely to upheave the status quo, and they are likely to desire a change if they see their own rise as difficult to attain, which in a classic power structure is always going to be difficult.
I'm aware that's not the intention, or how it was meant to come across, but I see a lot of iffy language and plain silly assumptions in this thread.
If we legalize polygamy, 1% of the men will end up with 50% of the women? In today's world, really?
Monogamy enforced to ensure that everyone has the fair chance to get a mate? The implications of this of course is that everyone deserves a mate, should be granted equal access to one, etc, ignoring personal merits, blah blah.
Women will decide to all marry the same rich guy if they were given the opportunity?
Women are naturally drawn to men of power, so all normal men would be screwed?
We also seem to only mention polygyny. Polyandry would also likely be legal if we're legalizing polygamy, no?
From a *historical* standpoint, some of these are true. In a world in which women are not allowed to own property or hold any influence in the public sphere, and whose only option for protection/sustenance is to get married, then sure, marrying a rich old man is a fantastic option for increasing your quality of life.
I just find the notion that enforced laws regarding marriage norms being the only reason 50% of women haven't all married Warren Buffet a little silly. Similarly the idea that such laws in place are good because otherwise it wouldn't be fair to all the "normal" *men* also seems silly.
Cool, thanks for the articles. It is an interesting idea, although it doesn't seem to imply that the idea is to let everyone have a chance (the poor single farmer) but rather that it becomes difficult to repress the violence of the young. Those without tend to violence against those with and thus polygamy would seem to encourage this type of violence. I wonder how that would relate to our more modern world since physical strength and wealth of food are no longer as important as they were in ancient societies.
Well as I said, we'll find out in a few years with China (or Thailand or wherever they will import their wives from).
I believe it's Vietnam that is one of the bigger exporter of wives.
Polygamy is illegal in the sense that you don't have the right to marry several people, that's fine. I don't see what's the problem if someone wants to live with two girlfriends or if a woman has her lover at home. That's really nobody's business.
Now, if it's legal to have two boyfriends, and it is, and legal to live with two men, and it is, I don't see why you couldn't live with your two boyfriends.
If we talk about marriage as an institution, that's obviously an other problem.
On December 19 2011 02:11 Deleuze wrote: If this woman is mother to a UK child she will not be forced to leave.
On top of that the whole case is hugely hypocritical: if she was from the UK what would they do? Would they order her to break up with the dude? Put her in jail? Or a fine? Since when does the justice looks into people's bedroom?
The Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Seperation of State and Contract! Marriage like anything else should / is a contractual agreement between consenting parties. If people want to live in a polygamous house that is their right. If they want a monogamous relationship that is their right. The only intervention from the Government is the upholding of contractual agreements. Not sure why so many people care what others do either to themselves, or in their own households.
Can anyone give a coherent reason for why the Government should be dictating to its supposedly 'free' citizens whom they can marry, and in what numbers they can, and for what reasons? Just another power to be abused, and one more infringement upon contractual rights and civil society.
On December 19 2011 02:13 Wegandi wrote: The Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Seperation of State and Contract! Marriage like anything else should / is a contractual agreement between consenting parties. If people want to live in a polygamous house that is their right. If they want a monogamous relationship that is their right. The only intervention from the Government is the upholding of contractual agreements. Not sure why so many people care what others do either to themselves, or in their own households.
Can anyone give a coherent reason for why the Government should be dictating to its supposedly 'free' citizens whom they can marry, and in what numbers they can, and for what reasons? Just another power to be abused, and one more infringement upon contractual rights and civil society.
Marriage is a civil contract, and the "government" has obviously its word to say like in any contract. There are legal contrracts and illegal contracts. And the only one to say that it's a bad thing are libertarians, but they don't make any sense anyway and live in a theoretical world where everything except the evil government is pink and happy. Plus it's not the government at all we are talking about, but the Justice. Society puts itself rules, and yeah, we don't live in the goddamn jungle so we are not "free", whatever that even means.
Problem is not about marriage, because if I understand she was not married with the dude. And then, it's about her relationships / sexual life, and that's not anybody's business anymore.
On December 19 2011 02:13 Wegandi wrote: The Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Seperation of State and Contract! Marriage like anything else should / is a contractual agreement between consenting parties. If people want to live in a polygamous house that is their right. If they want a monogamous relationship that is their right. The only intervention from the Government is the upholding of contractual agreements. Not sure why so many people care what others do either to themselves, or in their own households.
Can anyone give a coherent reason for why the Government should be dictating to its supposedly 'free' citizens whom they can marry, and in what numbers they can, and for what reasons? Just another power to be abused, and one more infringement upon contractual rights and civil society.
Marriage is a civil contract, and the "government" has obviously its word to say. Plus it's not the government at all, but the Justice.
Problem is not about marriage, because if I understand she was not married with the dude. And then, it's about her relationships / sexual life, and that's not anybody's business anymore.
Marriage is a contract between consenting parties. It has nothing to do with the State / Government. Not sure why the Government should have the power to dictate who you are allowed / not allowed to have as PoA, Shared-Bank Accounts, Next of Kin, Visitation rights, etc. etc. These are all contractual rights eminating from the liberties and rights of the individual.
Marriage was vested into the State for discriminatory and racist purposes in the first place. Government has no place, nor role in Marriage whatsoever. It is an institution that should be free and displaced from State-control. It's a giant social engineering rouse. Use tax incentives to alter the behavior of the individuals in society to either have more, or less babies, to buy, sell, trade certain items and products from certain companies, etc. etc.
I do not even understand your second sentence. What the hell is 'the Justice'?
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
On December 19 2011 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:13 Wegandi wrote: The Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Seperation of State and Contract! Marriage like anything else should / is a contractual agreement between consenting parties. If people want to live in a polygamous house that is their right. If they want a monogamous relationship that is their right. The only intervention from the Government is the upholding of contractual agreements. Not sure why so many people care what others do either to themselves, or in their own households.
Can anyone give a coherent reason for why the Government should be dictating to its supposedly 'free' citizens whom they can marry, and in what numbers they can, and for what reasons? Just another power to be abused, and one more infringement upon contractual rights and civil society.
Marriage is a civil contract, and the "government" has obviously its word to say. Plus it's not the government at all, but the Justice.
Problem is not about marriage, because if I understand she was not married with the dude. And then, it's about her relationships / sexual life, and that's not anybody's business anymore.
Marriage is a contract between consenting parties. It has nothing to do with the State / Government. Not sure why the Government should have the power to dictate who you are allowed / not allowed to have as PoA, Shared-Bank Accounts, Next of Kin, Visitation rights, etc. etc. These are all contractual rights eminating from the liberties and rights of the individual.
Marriage was vested into the State for discriminatory and racist purposes in the first place. Government has no place, nor role in Marriage whatsoever. It is an institution that should be free and displaced from State-control. It's a giant social engineering rouse. Use tax incentives to alter the behavior of the individuals in society to either have more, or less babies, to buy, sell, trade certain items and products from certain companies, etc. etc.
I do not even understand your second sentence. What the hell is 'the Justice'?
Marriage exist since thousand of years. What the fuck does it have to do with discrimination imposed from the State. The modern State was invented few hundred years ago, and we talk about something that has existed for basically ever.
Mariage is a social institution, despite your paranoid anti-static mantra that sounds like bad Ayn Rand. If you want to "marry freely", then you just make an agreement with your lover and that's about it. From the moment we talk about marriage, it has to do with the law, with the State and your legal status in society. That's what marriage is about.
If you are unhappy that people can't do "whatever they want" because that goes against "freedom", then let's all go back to trees and forget about society.
And if you don't want to take a legal engagement, then don't marry and live with your lover happy.
Geez...
Justice = institution that keep society together by punishing people who don't respect the law independent from both legislative and executive powers. Law = what puts society by giving it rules. Is not voted by the government but by the senate / parliament Government = people who rule a country and gives political orientation. In other words the executive.
If you kill someone it's not the government that puts you in jail, but the Justice that is independent from the executive.
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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
Yeah I've read that before. And I think it's just a bs explanation to try and apply their evolutionary behaviourist model by explaining every possible behaviour. There is a similar explanation out there on how rape must be beneficial somehow because it's a trait that survived. But such motivations move to the subconscious to explain behaviour (my genes made me do it) is behaviorism at its worst and pseudo-science at that. (If it is sub-conscious, how do we we know? It really starts sounding like Freud sans-the sexual repression.)
As to polygamy- I'm actually surprised my province (British Columbia) was able to uphold our law against polygamy. Simply because it is very difficult to prove why polygamy is immoral outside of religious reasons. Is it a transcendant, absolute institution or one defined by humans? If there is no God that defines marriage, then what is marriage really? A social contract that has been developed over the ages. If it is defined by humans, it can changed by humans to mean whatever humans want.
The only angle I can really see is the tendency towards underage marriage and marriage against a persons will, and issues of power disparity between the man and his wives which was the problem in Bountiful. But are those issues inherent in polygamy or simply these cult organizations that uses polygamy.? I quite expect the laws against polygamy to be challenged and eventually won in the courts. I think our courts argued that the Western tradition of marriage was historically two people, but I expect that particular argument to be countered.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
I agree completely. Same could be said about gay marriage that is still forbidden in most countries (I know it isn't in the UK, which is by far more tolerant on these questions than most western countries).
Notice however that polygamy is supposed to be married with two people while in this story, one of the women was not married. As much as I agree that marriage is a ridiculously narrow and repressive institution, I would add that in this case it's much worse since it has to do with justice screwing up with people's sexual behavior for pseudo moral reasons. And that's really unacceptable.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Ok, and?
You are justifying something that is specific to judeo-christian civilization by an anthropological "natural" explanation. That doesn't make sense. There are societies with absolutely all kind of sexual / relational structures. How do you explain that if you try to justify monogamy, monoandry and people's behavior through this kind of reasoning?
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
I think there is really no reason to attach so many laws to something like marriage. It's simply a tradition and a cultural thing, laws should concern everyone regardless of the way they live. So kicking someone of the country for being not being married to someone is pretty absurd reason, especially if you can only be married to one person in the eyes of the law.
I wish governing bodies concerned themselves more with freedom.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
If that logic was acceptable then people would still be in labor camps and world leaders would take a poop on enviromental issues and human rights because changing them would be too much work.
I agree it would be a hassle but sooner or later someone needs to take care of that. Along with property rights, health care, inheritance and what else you got. Current systems should never be viewed as final and complete. There are million things wrong in the current laws. In my opinion in most western nations the laws are way too protective on the cost of individual freedom and amplifies inequality in a number of ways.
Funny thing is that there is no law stopping you from living with multiple girlfriends and having children with them. Have fun living in that kind of condition though. I don't see the big deal in this if both sides are consensual, I mean we don't even look down on homosexuality anymore, so why not have polygamy if it's totally consensual? Hell even some arranged monogamous marriages cant be argued to be against human right if it's totally decided by the parents with the children not agreeing to it, even after they reach adulthood. Their obviously should be a limit of course, the days of hundreds of women existing solely for one rich guy shouldn't exactly be encouraged, especially if they don't have the same rights and status as that of the first wife. That's the complicated part, not having drama and conflict between all the wives. Obviously that is almost impossible, hence my "have fun living that kind of condition" quip.
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Nope. Still pseudo-science. And one that give justification for viewing modern male infidelity as simply acting to their nature and modern female infidelity as acting against their nature. (Prowess vs Slut) How can you prove this theory and how does it help us understand anything further about the past then what we already know? Many cultures had polygamous relationships- and our genes made us do it. It's not like you can actually prove it because it's all subconscious and very Feudian as far as scientific rigorous explanations go. Can't prove it nor disprove it.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
I think there is really no reason to attach so many laws to something like marriage. It's simply a tradition and a cultural thing, laws should concern everyone regardless of the way they live. So kicking someone of the country for being not being married to someone is pretty absurd reason, especially if you can only be married to one person in the eyes of the law.
I wish governing bodies concerned themselves more with freedom.
No, Marriage has an economic and sociologist effect as well. The only thing cultural about marriage is 1. its roles, 2. its institutional direction and 3. its intentions.
You should ask the governing bodies to concern themselves with equal rights, to be within a society and its benefits, you have to sacrifice some individual rights.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
Yeah I've read that before. And I think it's just a bs explanation to try and apply their evolutionary behaviourist model by explaining every possible behaviour. There is a similar explanation out there on how rape must be beneficial somehow because it's a trait that survived. But such motivations move to the subconscious to explain behaviour (my genes made me do it) is behaviorism at its worst and pseudo-science at that. (If it is sub-conscious, how do we we know? It really starts sounding like Freud sans-the sexual repression.)
It makes sense for these people to try to explain it, though. Don't just disregard their research. Genes interacting with environment explains a lot, and if they didn't attempt to explain any of it at all, then they would get nowhere. They don't ever just get down to the level of "my genes made me do it." That's not interesting. It's the looking for the benefits of behavior that makes it interesting.
On December 19 2011 03:20 bubblegumbo wrote: Funny thing is that there is no law stopping you from living with multiple girlfriends and having children with them. Have fun living in that kind of condition though. I don't see the big deal in this if both sides are consensual, I mean we don't even look down on homosexuality anymore, so why not have polygamy if it's totally consensual? Hell even some arranged monogamous marriages cant be argued to be against human right if it's totally decided by the parents with the children not agreeing to it, even after they reach adulthood. Their obviously should be a limit of course, the days of hundreds of women existing solely for one rich guy shouldn't exactly be encouraged, especially if they don't have the same rights and status as that of the first wife. That's the complicated part, not having drama and conflict between all the wives. Obviously that is almost impossible, hence my "have fun living that kind of condition" quip.
Arranged marriages are legitimate because 1. the children prefer it, 2. its tradition to the culture and 3. it maintains a good partnership between lineages of both families and helps keeps the lineage going while in addition, securing their children in a healthy marriage.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Ok, and?
You are justifying something that is specific to judeo-christian civilization by an anthropological "natural" explanation. That doesn't make sense. There are societies with absolutely all kind of sexual / relational structures. How do you explain that if you try to justify monogamy, monoandry and people's behavior through this kind of reasoning?
I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Ok, and?
You are justifying something that is specific to judeo-christian civilization by an anthropological "natural" explanation. That doesn't make sense. There are societies with absolutely all kind of sexual / relational structures. How do you explain that if you try to justify monogamy, monoandry and people's behavior through this kind of reasoning?
I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
It's the other way around, men are more choosy than women rofl
On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
Oh my position is that what matters is what is socially acceptable. Again, marriage is a narrow institution that in my opinion doesn't structure anymore people's relationship the way it used to do. It's just not that important anymore and a lot of people live unmarried and have a family life this way.
I think the fact that people have the right to live their sexuality and love life almost the way they want as long as they don't hurt anybody, which is absolutely unique in history, is an incredible victory for everybody who believes in freedom. UK's repressive reaction brings us 40 years back. That's very sad.
On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
Oh my position is that what matters is what is socially acceptable. Again, marriage is a narrow institution that in my opinion doesn't structure anymore people's relationship the way it used to do. It's just not that important anymore and a lot of people live unmarried and have a family life this way.
I think the fact that people have the right to live their sexuality and love life almost the way they want as long as they don't hurt anybody, which is absolutely unique in history, is an incredible victory for everybody who believes in freedom. UK's repressive reaction brings us 40 years back. That's very sad.
Marriage still has a large signification outside of Western societies. Western societies are indivudalists and so they think individually, hence why marriage has less of an effect or validity.
In the East, marriage is still sacred and very important. So you have to think a lot more openly about the different cultures and their societies they are within. Divorce is still very shameful and frowned upon in many countries as well.
On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Ok, and?
You are justifying something that is specific to judeo-christian civilization by an anthropological "natural" explanation. That doesn't make sense. There are societies with absolutely all kind of sexual / relational structures. How do you explain that if you try to justify monogamy, monoandry and people's behavior through this kind of reasoning?
I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
I just don't think you can explain women or men behavior with pseudo scientific theories. Women and men behavior is if anything a social construction. Women in Spain behave very differently and chose their lover in a different way than in Sweden. Saying that women are like that because of pregnancy and bla bla bla seems to me a way to write sexist clichés. in the stone of doubtful science.
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.
So long as women have a free choice, this is not going to happen. I think polygamy could easily be legalised once women rights are the same as those of men, provided women can also have more men. I'm pretty sure most people will still prefer monogamy due to the jealousy aspect
On December 19 2011 03:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:27 Torte de Lini wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
Oh my position is that what matters is what is socially acceptable. Again, marriage is a narrow institution that in my opinion doesn't structure anymore people's relationship the way it used to do. It's just not that important anymore and a lot of people live unmarried and have a family life this way.
I think the fact that people have the right to live their sexuality and love life almost the way they want as long as they don't hurt anybody, which is absolutely unique in history, is an incredible victory for everybody who believes in freedom. UK's repressive reaction brings us 40 years back. That's very sad.
Marriage still has a large signification outside of Western societies. Western societies are indivudalists and so they think individually, hence why marriage has less of an effect or validity.
In the East, marriage is still sacred and very important. So you have to think a lot more openly about the different cultures and their societies they are within. Divorce is still very shameful and frowned upon in many countries as well.
Yeah, but we are talking about the UK, and maybe about western world, I think?
Of course it's different elsewhere, there is no universals for these kind of things.
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Nope. Still pseudo-science. And one that give justification for viewing modern male infidelity as simply acting to their nature and modern female infidelity as acting against their nature. (Prowess vs Slut) How can you prove this theory and how does it help us understand anything further about the past then what we already know? Many cultures had polygamous relationships- and our genes made us do it. It's not like you can actually prove it because it's all subconscious and very Feudian as far as scientific rigorous explanations go. Can't prove it nor disprove it.
It doesn't matter whether you, Falling, denote it as a pseudo-science or not. Yes, there are too many variables to ever possibly know every cause. People are more likely to figure the secrets to the universe than to figure this stuff out. But I don't see how you can say it doesn't help give at least a better basic understanding.
And everyone at every given second is acting to their nature. That doesn't mean we should lower the laws. Acting with or against laws is part of our nature as well. There is no point to blame an action on nature and let someone off the hook, but it is better to understand why things happen and then change laws to provide incentives and disincentives for things to be the way envisioned.
On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair 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.
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't.
In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking.
Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring.
What a facepalm.
You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate?
Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can?
You are missing the point; that's not what I said.
I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché.
The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies?
Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it?
I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything.
Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established.
And yes, it is going to be simplified.
Ok, and?
You are justifying something that is specific to judeo-christian civilization by an anthropological "natural" explanation. That doesn't make sense. There are societies with absolutely all kind of sexual / relational structures. How do you explain that if you try to justify monogamy, monoandry and people's behavior through this kind of reasoning?
I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
I just don't think you can explain women or men behavior with pseudo scientific theories. Women and men behavior is if anything a social construction. Women in Spain behave very differently and chose their lover in a different way than in Sweden. Saying that women are like that because of pregnancy and bla bla bla seems to me a way to write sexist clichés. in the stone of doubtful science.
Yes, it is greatly a social construction and there is a lot of variance in behavior. We have a great deal of plasticity, and society molds us.
I'll give it to you that social science has its flaws, but I don't think it is very useful to call it pseudo science.
Edit: Just because you cannot very formally prove something does not make it useless or a pseudo-science. These theories have undergone criticism.
On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
If a people want to formalise the relationships between them and give it legal standing then why not. That's exactly what a marriage is. Saying "you can just common law" it is the exact same shit people told homosexuals when they wanted to get married. Let's take a hypothetical example of a polygamist soldier who'd like to marry two women who know about each other and would like to partake in this marriage, they're in a happy healthy relationship together. The soldier dies and because they've not been allowed to marry the army doesn't pay any support to his girlfriends etc because their relationship has no legal identity. Marriage is a contract that people use to define their relationships, it should be as flexible as the relationships it can define. People can have marriages with pre-nups, marriages where the wife's property becomes the man's, marriages where the parties retain separate financial identities and anywhere in between. It's simply an overarching term for the formal recognition and identification of a relationship. There's no such thing as common law marriage because the point of marriage is that it's not common law.
On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote:
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships.
If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
If a people want to formalise the relationships between them and give it legal standing then why not. That's exactly what a marriage is. Saying "you can just common law" it is the exact same shit people told homosexuals when they wanted to get married. Let's take a hypothetical example of a polygamist soldier who'd like to marry two women who know about each other and would like to partake in this marriage, they're in a happy healthy relationship together. The soldier dies and because they've not been allowed to marry the army doesn't pay any support to his girlfriends etc because their relationship has no legal identity. Marriage is a contract that people use to define their relationships, it should be as flexible as the relationships it can define. People can have marriages with pre-nups, marriages where the wife's property becomes the man's, marriages where the parties retain separate financial identities and anywhere in between. It's simply an overarching term for the formal recognition and identification of a relationship. There's no such thing as common law marriage because the point of marriage is that it's not common law.
Except homosexuals' marriage has zero repercussions on the law or bring up any issues. It's the same excuse, but one has a valid reasoning while the other doesn't (prohibiting homosexuals from marrying violates their charter of rights in Canada, thus why they are allowed to get married here).
Point being, a religion standpoint to prevent someone from getting married because it destroys the sacred unity of the symbolized marriage isn't a valid reason. Objectively saying that we can't allow polygamy because it would arise issues of the laws I listed previously is a lot more valid because it isn't a personal reason, but a societal one. If polygamy is allowed, then that creates a precedence for a lot of relationships ("I was married to my wife, but I love my mistress and spent an equal amount of time with her" is an example, though weak).
I'm all up for Prenuptional agreements for polygamy though health care still is an issue though, no?
Ok, a few things. First, the guy with the scientific explanation as to why females (particularly female mammals) are more "choosy" than males, is correct. He just didn't explain it that well. In short, eggs and the resulting pregnancy are a much larger resource investment than just sperm from a male. Is this something women are consciously aware of? Of course not. But it definitely is a factor (instinctive, if you want to use that word) regarding male/female human behavior. It is the same reason men are attracted to large breasted/assed women. There isn't a conscious reason men like it, but they do (women with these characteristics are more likely to bear healthy children). This is an oversimplification, but you get the point. Is this the ONLY factor regarding attraction? Of course not, and you can even find people who are attracted to the opposite. There are tons of cultural and personal factors that influence "attraction," and I don't think anyone can claim to know and understand all of them.
Second, marriage as a social practice, at least in the west, is there just as much to protect women as men. The idea that "1% of the men would have 50% of the women" or anything like that is, frankly, sort of dumb. I study ancient Roman history on a graduate level. A few things about ancient Rome: 1. It was incredibly patriarchal, 2. It isn't influenced by "christian values" 3. Men are viewed as superior to woman, literally, and were the ones in charge of laws and most societal customs. So why did ancient Romans have marriage very similar to "christian" marriage(1 man, 1 woman)? Well, there are a lot of reasons, frankly too many to list here. But a key one to keep in mind is that men have daughters. While this might seem trivial, when you look deeper there is a big reason for men to want marriage as an institution to protect their daughters. In Roman society, the head male of the family was responsible for the welfare of everyone else, particularly the women. Therefore, men are financially responsible for their daughters, until they marry them off, at which point the daughter's husband is now financially responsible for her. Fathers don't want their daughters in deadbeat families, obviously, but they also don't want to be responsible for their daughters all their life. Marriage as an institution ensures that their daughters are treated fairly (the husband cannot spread his wealth around several women, he must take care of just her), and that they can marry them off into financially responsible relationships. While it was expected that men would "tomcat around," to actually support another women that wasn't your wife was seen as a cultural taboo, and was one of one of the few reasons a woman could actually divorce her husband (through legal action of a male in her family).
There are a lot of other reasons marriage as 1 man, 1 woman has existed in the west, before Christianity, and I'd like to talk about more of them, but this is already tl;dr.
On December 19 2011 03:22 Torte de Lini wrote: No, Marriage has an economic and sociologist effect as well. The only thing cultural about marriage is 1. its roles, 2. its institutional direction and 3. its intentions.
It has some effects but it shouldn't really have.
You should ask the governing bodies to concern themselves with equal rights, to be within a society and its benefits, you have to sacrifice some individual rights.
But they should ideally aim to keep as many individual rights as possible. In my experience most laws and actions proposed pass that question compeletely in almost any country.
Something like marriage shouldn't gain people any more benefits than blood relations. This case has nothing little to do with inheritance so it better be left out but that is one of the main points of it I have problems with. To clear this, the only obligation and connection ( inheritance and duty - vice ) two humans should have in the eyes of law is that of a guardian and a minor. Unless one or both are in a special position where different laws should apply.
On December 19 2011 03:55 HardlyNever wrote: Second, marriage as a social practice, at least in the west, is there just as much to protect women as men. The idea that "1% of the men would have 50% of the women" or anything like that is, frankly, sort of dumb.
I would cut him slack and not be so mean. I think it is safe to say he was only exaggerating.
It's funny to see people who probably strongly believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection to so easily dismiss theories of human behavior based on biology and evolution. It's a highly anti-intellectual way of looking at things.
I truly believe that being able to actively betray our instincts is what helps make us human than mere beasts. But let's not kid ourselves and think we got this far by ignoring our instincts before we were technologically advanced / intelligent enough to do so. If a female choosing her mate more selectively led to a higher success of raising a child to adulthood, then it's reasonable to say that natural selection should make that trait one of the instincts / factors that women naturally find "attractive" in men. Over millions of years, the ones who didn't would not multiply as rapidly or die off all together, while the ones with the correct selective criteria would see more success (in the most simplistic terms). To brush it off as "omg you think my gf chose me because of that?!?!" is just an absolute non-sense way of looking at it and reminds me of a high school classroom philosophy discussion.
I'm not saying it's anywhere near 100% fact or certain, but the arguments given against it here for the most part have been pretty poor. And there's no reason to take offense to the proposition that it may be true, because like I said, humans are more than just mere instincts. But instincts do in fact contribute to our preferences -- they just do not always dominate them.
On December 19 2011 03:22 Torte de Lini wrote: No, Marriage has an economic and sociologist effect as well. The only thing cultural about marriage is 1. its roles, 2. its institutional direction and 3. its intentions.
You should ask the governing bodies to concern themselves with equal rights, to be within a society and its benefits, you have to sacrifice some individual rights.
But they should ideally aim to keep as many individual rights as possible. In my experience most laws and actions proposed pass that question compeletely in almost any country.
Something like marriage shouldn't gain people any more benefits than blood relations. This case has nothing little to do with inheritance so it better be left out but that is one of the main points of it I have problems with. To clear this, the only obligation and connection ( inheritance and duty - vice ) two humans should have in the eyes of law is that of a guardian and a minor. Unless one or both are in a special position where different laws should apply.
You should explain your points instead of relying on me to reject or disagree and explain why. I'll bold which ones because to be honest, some of this is a bit short-sighted.
It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society.
On December 19 2011 04:08 liberal wrote: It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society.
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.
And that doesn't happen because having mistresses is illegal, right..?
On December 19 2011 04:08 liberal wrote: It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society.
No, it's not really clear at all.
Would you extrapolate as to why it's legal for me to have a mistress, but not formally recognise her as a partner equal to my wife?
Or, alternatively, why the sanctity of the bond between people who marry for money needs to be protected, in preference to one that's between three consenting adults who love eachother?
Is there any particular reason for why I can have multiple girlfriends at the same time, yet not marry more then one of them?
Or why the law doesn't stop me from marrying off my teenage daughter to a creepy cult leader (As long as it's just me who's doing so)?
On December 19 2011 03:22 Torte de Lini wrote: No, Marriage has an economic and sociologist effect as well. The only thing cultural about marriage is 1. its roles, 2. its institutional direction and 3. its intentions.
It has some effects but it shouldn't really have.
You should ask the governing bodies to concern themselves with equal rights, to be within a society and its benefits, you have to sacrifice some individual rights.
But they should ideally aim to keep as many individual rights as possible. In my experience most laws and actions proposed pass that question compeletely in almost any country.
How can individual freedom be a bad thing? I don't know how to explain it any better. Freedom gets the stick for every unrealistic fear the countries leaders ( including the big corporations) have or to protect the government. Freedom of speech has been under the radar a lot lately. I don't know maybe my views are a bit too utopian but I don't think I could stand living thinking people around me are complete retards and need the big brother 24/7
Something like marriage shouldn't gain people any more benefits than blood relations. This case has nothing little to do with inheritance so it better be left out but that is one of the main points of it I have problems with. To clear this, the only obligation and connection ( inheritance and duty - vice ) two humans should have in the eyes of law is that of a guardian and a minor. Unless one or both are in a special position where different laws should apply.
You should explain your points instead of relying on me to reject or disagree and explain why. I'll bold which ones because to be honest, some of this is a bit short-sighted.
People should benefit from performing a rite that only holds meaning to some? Writing a name on paper with someone else shouldn't result in you getting special service or special laws protecting you or most of their belongings when they die by default. I think whenever people get something more than other people leads directly into more inequality. Not much work is put into being married or related to someone.
I guess those are pretty radical ideas, I forgive you. I'm not against giving gifts to people but there should be heavy limitations, especially post mortem when the "gifts" are generally considerable.
On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote: this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom.
Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way."
On December 19 2011 04:08 liberal wrote: It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society.
No, it's not really clear at all.
You can feel free to elaborate at any time as well. Five pages without a legitimate argument, seems pretty clear to me...
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
What makes you think you know the true nature of marriage and they don't? lol
I thought female choose male that they think will have gene that will benefit for their offspring is common sense. It was written in like hundreds of papers or something.
On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote: this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom.
Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way."
pragmatism mostly. there are way to many variables but basically polygamy is always bad for males and always better for females (asuming they don't get the shaft).
but what you're doing here is use the social construct that developed/evolved from marriage and think it'll hold up if you make changes to it. well it won't. Ex: 100 people, 50% males 50% females. 10 men, being the most rich/pretty/strong/intelligent/blablabla, get all the females. those other 40 males will basically have no purpose in their lifes since they can't/won't reproduce let allone make families of their own. now, not only those men will not be able to further their gene pool but will also be required to work for the other 10man so they'll be able to upkeep their women. but why would they do what?. well they won't. they'll form batchelor groups and seek ways to end the reign of those 10men. but hey!, since we're all monkeys here, why couldn't we be more like baboons, right?.
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.
On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote: this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom.
Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way."
pragmatism mostly. there are way to many variables but basically polygamy is always bad for males and always better for females (asuming they don't get the shaft).
but what you're doing here is use the social construct that developed/evolved from marriage and think it'll hold up if you make changes to it. well it won't. Ex: 100 people, 50% males 50% females. 10 men, being the most rich/pretty/strong/intelligent/blablabla, get all the females. those other 40 males will basically have no purpose in their lifes since they can't/won't reproduce let allone make families of their own. now, not only those men will not be able to further their gene pool but will also be required to work for the other 10man so they'll be able to upkeep their women. but why would they do what?. well they won't. they'll form batchelor groups and seek ways to end the reign of those 10men. but hey!, since we're all monkeys here, why couldn't we be more like baboons, right?.
So let me make sure I understood this...
Your argument is that polygamy should remain illegal, because women should be forced to choose less desirable partners, otherwise some men won't have partners and will attack those who do.
Sorry, but it sounds like you are living in a fantasy world. It would be much more honest to just say "this is what society taught me, and anything different is for baboons and monkeys."
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?
I seriously doubt the large majority of women would want to live in a polygamous relationship even if it was legal. Some of you make it seem this is some secret desire every woman have...
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.
On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote: this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom.
Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way."
pragmatism mostly. there are way to many variables but basically polygamy is always bad for males and always better for females (asuming they don't get the shaft).
but what you're doing here is use the social construct that developed/evolved from marriage and think it'll hold up if you make changes to it. well it won't. Ex: 100 people, 50% males 50% females. 10 men, being the most rich/pretty/strong/intelligent/blablabla, get all the females. those other 40 males will basically have no purpose in their lifes since they can't/won't reproduce let allone make families of their own. now, not only those men will not be able to further their gene pool but will also be required to work for the other 10man so they'll be able to upkeep their women. but why would they do what?. well they won't. they'll form batchelor groups and seek ways to end the reign of those 10men. but hey!, since we're all monkeys here, why couldn't we be more like baboons, right?.
So let me make sure I understood this...
Your argument is that polygamy should remain illegal, because women should be forced to choose less desirable partners, otherwise some men won't have partners and will attack those who do.
Sorry, but it sounds like you are living in a fantasy world. It would be much more honest to just say "this is what society taught me, and anything different is for baboons and monkeys."
well maybe not illegal but should not be accomodated for. i am vastly a mysogyn(?) so i figured the women won't really make a choise there. they'll just follow the other females, go with the visual impact or follow the money.
my example was out of touch with the realities of today (i implied it imo), but you is the one living in a fantasy world if you think that everything that happened 'till now as far as the 'social evolution' goes is wrong/bad and needs a change.
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.
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?
i am telling you here, very serious. if you end up with 10 females and me with none i'll do what ever i can to reverse the situation. and i mean what ever it takes.
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.
Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes?
Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries.
But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
In the UK, it seems almost anything that can be proven as "human rights" is viable as a legal reason. The courts, from what I've read, are dangerously liberal. I don't have a problem with gay rights or anti-discrimination laws, but this human rights defense needs to have a line drawn before it gets even more out of hand. Can't wait for a sharia law execution be dependable as a human right.
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.
Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes?
Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries.
But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so.
The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one.
But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
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.
Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes?
Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries.
But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so.
The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one.
But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
Thanks for injecting some reason into this thread. It's legitimately depressing that so many people here occupy the absurd position you're responding to.
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.
I think it has a lot more to do with #1 than #2. I don't care what an adult chooses to do. If a man wants to hollow out a tree and go to town on it then let him. The problem is that polygamists groups indoctrinate (brainwash) their kids into going along with it and there are countless stories of abuse, forced marriages, and rapes (directed at boys and girls) that happen.
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.
Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes?
Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries.
But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so.
The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one.
But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
That sounds like a forever alone perspective. There are millions of girl on the planet who I wouldn't have sex with on their best day and FAR less I'd be willing to spend the rest of my life with.
The idea that polygamy is illegal to have a fair shot of getting women is is believe it or not somewhat historically accurate. Anthropologists teach this fairly commonly.
It really has next to nothing to do with the rights of the parents and everything to do with the rights of the kids.
"Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family."
I tried to make this argument with the "house slaves" thing.
On December 19 2011 01:50 Tien wrote: It's illegal because you get a lot of single parent raised kids which isn't a good thing.
I don't like how this is getting completely ignored and everyone is focusing on distributing the sex around. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMNIT!
Although i think the opposite of whatever insanity Haemonculus is saying is likely true, it's still completely secondary and unimportant compared to the impact polygamy has on children.
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
Maybe in your narrow minded, ignorant world view it is.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
Not for Islam.
Up to 4 wives you can have, at least in my side of the globe.
This is, to me, the entire point of why polygamy should be illegal. Not because of a few rich dudes getting all the women, not because marriage is "supposed" to be between two people, but because it springs from non-equality between genders. Now, just look at this thread. How many people just assumed that polygamy implied a man having several wives? I don't care if it interferes with our view of this concept called "marriage", but I do care if we promote dominant males and a return to archaic values of what makes a house great and what doesn't.
Also, there is sex enough for everybody to go around. Why should we let some bored white millionaire hoard it in his modern age dragon roost?
And just to make sure everybody gets me here, I wasn't bashing Islam. I accept religions and people can believe what they will, even though Odinism is just retarded. My point was, that polygamy almost never implies that a women has more than one man.
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.
Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes?
Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries.
But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so.
The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one.
But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
as i say in my earlier posts, your whole reasoning/logic is based on what marriage has achieved so far. you can't see past it and how would the lack of it would affect/change you. i gave an example of a worse (not really) case scenario and you're already trippin' about your value as a woman and about your ability to make choises. you have those choices because 'marriage' allowed you to, trained you to, taught you to.
if you would've lived in a polygamy driven world, your father/mother/school would teach you things way differently.
House slaves, really? What exactly is it about marriage that enables such a practice?
And again, I agree that some of these arguments make sense in a historical context. Taking a look at the Reynolds case, we're looking at 1878. Aside from marriage, what was a woman's option for supporting herself?
Only what, 52% of all adults in this country are married today? Why do we still insist that the "husband-wife-pair" is the "staple" of modern society?
"Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family."
I tried to make this argument with the "house slaves" thing.
That quote is exactly the mindset of many jurists back then who needed to justify undemocratic policies. They use words like "Western history" and "social structure" but ignore the fact that restricting freedoms just to preserve a comfortable existing social structure is the exact antithesis of liberalism. By trying to protect their narrow idea of democracy and freedom they are destroying its basic principles.
Edit: And the social implications of the effect of polygamy on children does not hold water here. The state can choose to promote traditional families, but an outright ban on associations between individuals is undemocratic at its core.
There is something I don't understand. I am (almost) certain adultery is not a crime in the UK. I am also certain there is no law forbidding you to host whoever you choose under your roof.
So why should this woman be deported. Unless they tried to marry, is there a fuck police going around to determine who is polygamous? did they bring themselves to court to prove a point?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 00:17 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!).
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 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?
Polyamory is the way to go, take out the religion and maintain the multiple male and female partners. With open communication and sanity, which I admit is hard for some people, it works out far better than serial monogamy.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Where are you getting these facts from? I'd like to see a study that shows that many women would prefer multiple husbands.
Polygamy is already existent in society today/past; the only thing lacking is a contract making it official in the eyes of the goverment like that we have for marriage.
And with marriage losing its value, it used to be a pretty set in stone deal. Now its an excuse to throw abit of a party more then anything. Sign some papers, maybe get some tax cuts. And oh, dont forget to sign the 'If we divorce anything we owned before marrying is ours 100% just things after marriage that we gotten as a couple should be split 50/50" deals, no sane person forgets that today. Ehm, with that lose of value attached to the label "marriage" girl/boyfriend/dating is the only status your after. Your marrige going sour? Oh, we are not married/dating anymore. Its roughly the same level of seriousness.
With multiple girlfriends being acceptable already. Polygamy does not destroy our civilization. My eyes read 'polygamist marry their daughters!' and other such things. Maybe thats historicaly true, polygamist being a kinky kind. Nowdays to? Ok to marry your underage daughter? Law most likely says: Eh No. Ok to force someone? Law most likely says: Eeeh, No stupid. And thus with equalness before the law there is nothing wrong with multiple offical partners. They must obey the law. If the law dosent say you cant marry your 12 year old daughter we should probably put it in there just to make sure.
Do you see a ton of girls after every rich guy out there? Hmm, bad example. Ofc there is. But theres also a frackton of girls/boys out there finding a partner or partners that dont have high social status even to they could given their genetics(Attractiveness etc etc) blah. I should once again not try to do any debate in english and I will now stop with the lcosing. Theres all sorts out there: Golddiggers, People wanting only one partner, people wanting/accepting multiple, people that think soft eyes and warm hands trumph a high social status; or potentialy they can brag to their friends who dream of love but get cold reality served for dinner each night, that money certainly isnt what you should fancy when looking for a partner.
Does it drive anyone else here crazy when someone posts about "facts" or "logic" when its really just their own subjective thoughts? Interesting case, wonder what the results would be in American court...
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Where are you getting these facts from? I'd like to see a study that shows that many women would prefer multiple husbands.
Possibly it's also worth asking (the hypothetical and unanswerable question) how many men would be comfortable being in a relationship with a woman with multiple male partners - and if the answer isn't approximately the same as women who would be comfortable being in a relationship with multiple female partners, then the next question would be: why the double standard?
[QUOTE]On December 19 2011 07:49 Golem72 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote: [QUOTE]On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal [/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
The last two lines of this post is the actual content of the poster. two lines that are basically trolling. I'll say it for him and for the edification of others. X and Y are variables in math, math is a form of argument and the argument is solved via the equation becoming =. Math, or argument, is also used by people who want to use logical argument. Philosophers frequently use notation.
An example, from the book "Probabilities, Problems, and Paradoxes" ([url=http://www.amazon.com/Probabilities-problems-paradoxes-Readings-inductive/dp/082210010X]the book at amazon[/url]) is this:
[quote]I shall bring about E. Bringing about E implies doing A at t, if in circumstances C at t. I am in C now. So I shall do A.[/quote]
Or, more simply for grade school students:
All Y's are Z's. All X's are Y's. Therefore all X's are Z's.
Please don't add vacuous two liners about disliking math to a thread anymore.
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!).
You seem quite ignorant to just how different society was only a couple hundred years ago. The majority of men in a society were in non-land holding and didn't have the same rights as those in the aristocrat class. Women had even less rights and had pretty much zero chance to be self supporting. Outside of being supported by a husband, there were generally 2 options of surviving - be a maid or prostitute. In either case, they were usually indentured to the job and received food and board instead of pay. Marrying a wealthy man was the only way for women to move up in society.
To draw conclusions based on the society of then, and use them for today, is asinine.
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
it's every man's (unspoken) fantasy
I concur.
I believe deep in the heart of every man is a genuine desire to have sex with all the beautiful women in the world.
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.
Wow, that is one perspective I've never even considered before!
Nothing in the law or otherwise is stopping this situation from happening right now. Rich men have mistresses (and rich women have misteresses or whatever the male word is). The corruption in polygamy comes when women are forced against their will (see middle east, FDL sects). If this family is not forcing anyone against their will then I can't imagine a reason why it would be wrong.
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.
Religion is separate from courts I'm pretty sure this is one of laws that make the court system fair and just.
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion
Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will.
who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion
Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will.
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
On December 19 2011 08:31 sirachman wrote: Polyamory is the way to go, take out the religion and maintain the multiple male and female partners. With open communication and sanity, which I admit is hard for some people, it works out far better than serial monogamy.
As someone who's witnessed both scenarios, agree wholeheartedly. Bizarrely, most of the monogamous relationships I've witnessed have ended worse than the polyamorous ones (which normally ended with a degree of heartbreak, but everyone stayed friends afterwards).
Bad roll of the dice, most likely.
On December 19 2011 08:41 Shiori wrote: The basic problem is that it's pretty much unavoidably unequal.
I actually feel the exact same way about Monogomy. I can only think of one such relationship which is equal, in every other case one partner makes vastly more than the other or is the sole earner, who could walk out tomorrow and the other one who be completely bollocked.
Relationships in general tend to be unequal to some degree.
More women would go for the 'not technically a prostitute' life track, and more monied men would sponsor them, if society were more accepting of it. Is that a problem? I for one don't want to marry any woman who'd rather be a rich man's nth mistress anyway...
who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion
Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will.
If that was me, I'd handle it like a mature adult. I wanted one thing, she didn't want it and hid what she wanted, therefore she is untrustworthy and I can move on. it's not about selfishness, coldness or anything like that. It's about understanding that there's a fundamental difference of belief and desire that will never allow the relationship to work. You might love some people to death, but you cant always stay friends or lovers with them if they insist on doing things destructive to the relationship.
I really don't see how a relationship like that could be fruitful. I mean how can one person dived his love for multiple people and have it be equal? Doesn't sound very logical to me.
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd.
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society.
This is an immature and erroneous approach to state and law.
It is true, the state does and, in fact, should stay away from the bedroom, as it is never the business of the state to intervene in the personal - sexual - affairs of people. It is, however, obliged by law to protect and uphold the contract entered upon by its citizens, even those of personal nature such as marriage.
Now to the items you raised. An affair concurrent with a marriage is, as a matter of fact, a violation of the aforementioned contract (marriage) and as long as any party (depending on the legal requirements stipulated by the country) pursues legal action, the state has no choice but decide on the matter. And it has to do this whether the affair is a secret or is done with the legal partners knowledge and consent.
What you miss here Kwark is the dynamics of citizenship and state. Remember, the state does not force anyone to marry. a man or woman can have a hundred boyfriends or girlfriends simultaneously and the state wouldn't even as much as bother to notice. But once people enter into a state-sanctioned contract, these dynamics change drastically. This is more for practical reasons than anything else. First and foremost is to synchronize the rights practiced by the citizen in consonant with the other laws of the land - property ownership, child support, etc., not to mention that sorry affair of official documentation. For sure there are gray areas, but the state, as it should, operates on a rule of majority rather than exemption.
In short, if you do not intend to play by the rules, don't play the game. You are free to fornicate with as many consenting woman as you want, even simultaneously, if you did not bind yourself and another person AND the state to a contract that you swore to respect and obey.
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.
Oh we're not making generalizations here at all. All women are NATURALLY drawn to power? No, some women are. Just as some men are drawn to powerful women. Please don't make shit up. As to the real topic, it just seems weird in a country like the UK, your religion does not excuse illegal behaviour/illegal actions, period.
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.
Oh we're not making generalizations here at all. All women are NATURALLY drawn to power? No, some women are. Just as some men are drawn to powerful women. Please don't make shit up. As to the real topic, it just seems weird in a country like the UK, your religion does not excuse illegal behaviour/illegal actions, period.
he said it wrong. all women are naturally drawn to money and success. All men are too, in one way or another. How do we know? When was the last supermodel who married a homeless person?
On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote: [quote] 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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
On December 19 2011 09:23 Nancial wrote: why is it illegal, retarded laws. what doesnt hurt anybody physically against his will should be legal
Nah, I'm pretty glad that polygamy is illegal. I really hope it stays illegal. There is nothing good that can come out of polygamy, and there is a lot of bad. One man with the ability to have multiple wives means that one man can radically influence a huge number of people in an incredibly bad way. For example, in a polygamist marriage with five wives it would not be impossible for one man to be the father of 50+ children and to teach all 50+ of those children to become a Conservative or Liberal or Capitalist or Communist. It also causes issues with men becoming single as many more men would end up single if polygamy was legalized. As a currently single man I will say that it's hard enough to find a girl that I'd want to spend my life with. It'd be even harder if powerful men could have multiple spouses. Polygamy is bad for democracy and bad for society.
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.
More like human beings crave stability... I mean, poor women would see it as a great exchange: Food and shelter for sex... without the chance you're arrested or given a disease.
Cool, thanks for the articles. It is an interesting idea, although it doesn't seem to imply that the idea is to let everyone have a chance (the poor single farmer) but rather that it becomes difficult to repress the violence of the young. Those without tend to violence against those with and thus polygamy would seem to encourage this type of violence. I wonder how that would relate to our more modern world since physical strength and wealth of food are no longer as important as they were in ancient societies.
Well as I said, we'll find out in a few years with China (or Thailand or wherever they will import their wives from).
I believe it's Vietnam that is one of the bigger exporter of wives.
Yeah, especially to South Korea. Korea has a pretty decent-sized rural immigrant population of Vietnamese women brought by Korean farmers, who due to their work and location being rabidly counter to today's South Korean [pop] culture, are essentially incapable of finding women, since pretty much no women there want to live in the countryside. Not too much fun and materialism out there in the country :S.
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.
Oh we're not making generalizations here at all. All women are NATURALLY drawn to power? No, some women are. Just as some men are drawn to powerful women. Please don't make shit up. As to the real topic, it just seems weird in a country like the UK, your religion does not excuse illegal behaviour/illegal actions, period.
he said it wrong. all women are naturally drawn to money and success. All men are too, in one way or another. How do we know? When was the last supermodel who married a homeless person?
I suppose I don't understand your point though. People, (of both genders) are attracted to what is deemed socially prestigious, be it Wealth, Age, Looks, Profession, etc. That's not news to anyone as far as I'm aware.
What bearing does this have on polygamy and the discussion though?
Seriously, like one guy said, do most of you really KNOW any women that aren't your mothers? Seriously. Most women I know, whether in a relationship with me or someone else, are pretty jealous. They don't fancy the idea of their man being with another woman, regardless of what they might "pay" in order to do it.
Sure, that isn't all women, or PEOPLE, to be more accurate. Just like most guys in this thread don't want their wife/gf/etc. with someone else, neither do most women. Are there exceptions to this? Of course, but in my experience, they are in the minority.
Even if every women turned into the hypothetical woman in this thread, which they surely wouldn't, why would two women want to be with a guy that makes $150,000/year and spreads that money and, more importantly, his attention between two women, when they can each be with one that makes $50,000/year and spends all their attention on just them? Even in the ridiculous scenario of "women just want men with money(which is SO far from true)," it STILL doesn't hold up.
who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion
Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will.
The problem with your post is not your opinion, but the use of "right." It's too subjective to describe an ambiguous topic.
On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote: [quote]
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
who are you to say what's right and wrong? everyone has their own opinion
Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will.
The problem with your post is not your opinion, but the use of "right." It's too subjective to describe an ambiguous topic.
More or less. Whats right for or to her isn't necessarily what's right for or to you. If you believed it was right for or to you, you wouldn't give a shit. And then it'd probably make her feel dis-empowered and weak because people usually cheat as a power struggle as much as anything else. Cheaters tend to have an insatiable need to validate themselves, even if they are completely capable and powerful in real life, via influence or money. It's called narcissism. Anyway, If it's not right for or to you, in your own mind, you dump them and find someone who either will fully disclose what they want to do outside of the relationship so that you're on the same page and can accept or reject them to start, or they have values which are similar to your own so that you don't get cheated on.
Its why when I was in London and was approached by some students and asked to mark down the most important virtue and place it on a world map, I placed truth on it. IF people were honest with themselves and others, things would get done a lot faster and be a lot less headache. Truth is the closest to maturity people can get.
On December 19 2011 09:23 Nancial wrote: why is it illegal, retarded laws. what doesnt hurt anybody physically against his will should be legal
Nah, I'm pretty glad that polygamy is illegal. I really hope it stays illegal. There is nothing good that can come out of polygamy, and there is a lot of bad. One man with the ability to have multiple wives means that one man can radically influence a huge number of people in an incredibly bad way. For example, in a polygamist marriage with five wives it would not be impossible for one man to be the father of 50+ children and to teach all 50+ of those children to become a Conservative or Liberal or Capitalist or Communist. It also causes issues with men becoming single as many more men would end up single if polygamy was legalized. As a currently single man I will say that it's hard enough to find a girl that I'd want to spend my life with. It'd be even harder if powerful men could have multiple spouses. Polygamy is bad for democracy and bad for society.
I like what you say here overt. I've had plenty of discussions about monogamy and polygamy. I do accept people who are polygamous. I have a friend who's parents are polygamous. 1 dad, 3 mom, yeah. But it should not be considered the norm nor be extra encouraged at our generation. If society or evolution of civilization do continue to that stage then it should take over the natural course of the world.
Natural course of the world could be, one of the most logical example I can think of right now: if a one certain sex (male or female) gets a disease that is uncurable and ONLY affects their gender people, then naturally you will have to have a society where you mate to support the world population. But this will probably not be happening over a short period of time, it will be over years, or even hundreds of years to develop, because I doubt a disease SO noticeable or bearable would not be attacked or discovered until it takes too long to find a cure for it. Example, on current medical possibilities and science, it is possible to cure The Plague in a really quick period of time thus "containing and eliminating the disease" completely. So I guess by naturally, I mean a millennium or two.
Think about if there are more women than man now in the world, but definitely not 1:2. So if a man has 5 wives, that makes them unavailable to cater to other men if they are already committed in a polygamous family (suggested if this becomes the norm many many years from now.). Then the world's population will tilt really unevenly and badly until, possibly, women becomes a 10:1 ration after 5 generations or some sort of thing like that. That means they will get less and less till it eventually becomes next to impossible to have a mate because a certain gender/sex will become endangered and like all things endangered in this earth, they usually end up extinct. Which means human race will eventually die out. Or maybe they find out immortality by then. (?) This is also suggesting that polygamous family = 1 man 5 women. However, I am sure there will be cases where 1 woman + 5 men. So I guess the biggest problem would be how tilted will the ratio in men:women become if this becomes a "norm" which means it will be a "fashion statement" for civilization for a while which means for 2 - 3 generations after based on human evolution on inter-sex relationship, usually a 1 man to #x number of women is more possible. (Some areas in the world already see this as "wealth" or "power" like rural chinese areas, or muslims(their religion allows multiple wives, afaik, 4) or people with religions already open to polygamy.) Would society be able to evolved out of the 1man:#x woman state?
Again, all this evolving is assuming that I may or may not high be right now and just saying whatever I have been thinking deeply about for most of the time in my life, (yes, I believe in parallel universes, the big bang and that they are species more advanced than us who knows our existence but think of us as insignificant right now which is why they have no interest in contacting us... yet...)
On December 19 2011 09:43 HardlyNever wrote: This thread has turned into foreveralone.txt.
Seriously, like one guy said, do most of you really KNOW any women that aren't your mothers? Seriously. Most women I know, whether in a relationship with me or someone else, are pretty jealous. They don't fancy the idea of their man being with another woman, regardless of what they might "pay" in order to do it.
Sure, that isn't all women, or PEOPLE, to be more accurate. Just like most guys in this thread don't want their wife/gf/etc. with someone else, neither do most women. Are there exceptions to this? Of course, but in my experience, they are in the minority.
Even if every women turned into the hypothetical woman in this thread, which they surely wouldn't, why would two women want to be with a guy that makes $150,000/year and spreads that money and, more importantly, his attention between two women, when they can each be with one that makes $50,000/year and spends all their attention on just them? Even in the ridiculous scenario of "women just want men with money(which is SO far from true)," it STILL doesn't hold up.
The fact is polygamy favors women. Not men. I don't want the Western world to go back to polygamy. I'm happy with a society of monogamy.
As a man I have no reason to want polygamy to become legal. Also the social norms of how modern relationships work come from centuries of western society being monogamous.
edit: And for what it's worth, I wouldn't like get mad at or judge people who chose to be polygamists. I just don't want the state encouraging it.
On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote: [quote]
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
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.
Except in modern cultures women aren't objects like they were considered prior with no rights. Thus, this argument holds no weight, as dowry/purchased wives aren't all that real in western cultures.
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
Yes, that whole natural definition of something created by society.
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker. As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
eugenics does in fact occur in nature. the healthy wealthy more intelligent bearing more offspring would be proof of that. Of course he's correct, buit it is politically incorrect to say so, because "all men are created equal" even when the numbers prove otherwise. People entrenched in the dogma will discredit such ideas with personal bias and magical thinking rather than rationality and some logical process.
Genetics and Epigenetics are real.
of course what this person is saying is actually factual. Die hard Faithists in the fairy tale world of "genes and genetics have no power to create inequality in man" ignore it.
On December 19 2011 06:46 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
You are right. I shouldn't have written folk psychology but rather plain ignorance.
[...] even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids [...]
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker.
See what I did there..?
As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
The point is not about denying humans being animals and hence underlying certain biological predispositions. Biologism is about reducing any kind of human behaviour and social interaction to those very predispositions. I have encounterted those kinds of arguments over and over in this thread and people seem to take so much for "naturally given", not even thinking about challenging those "facts" critically.
Yes, of course biology and genetical predispositions play a role in an (human) animal's behaviour. Yes, there is much more to it than you might learn from your biology class, even if you might not like it.
While accusing me of thinking selectively and making up my own fantasy-feminism-world you could very well check your own mindset and see if you are not neglecting some essentials yourself, like, maybe, the power of social construction.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
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.
genetics would suggest that this is better for society as the most able 1% of men i.e. the smartest strongest etc would typically end up in this category thus these men would reproduce more and the genes being passed on would become stronger.... at least that's how it works with lions.
Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
Well considering that the 16th/17th centuries were the beginning stages of a slump for China they're just pulling out of, I don't know that the results jive with the theory.
It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.
Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.
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.
genetics would suggest that this is better for society as the most able 1% of men i.e. the smartest strongest etc would typically end up in this category thus these men would reproduce more and the genes being passed on would become stronger.... at least that's how it works with lions.
Interesting point. In that case, would humanity have been stronger?
On December 19 2011 08:52 Humanfails wrote: [quote]
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
You are right. I shouldn't have written folk psychology but rather plain ignorance.
As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
The point is not about denying humans being animals and hence underlying certain biological predispositions. Biologism is about reducing any kind of human behaviour and social interaction to those very predispositions. I have encounterted those kinds of arguments over and over in this thread and people seem to take so much for "naturally given", not even thinking about challenging those "facts" critically.
Yes, of course biology and genetical predispositions play a role in an (human) animal's behaviour. Yes, there is much more to it than you might learn from your biology class, even if you might not like it.
While accusing me of thinking selectively and making up my own fantasy-feminism-world you could very well check your own mindset and see if you are not neglecting some essentials yourself, like, maybe, the power of social construction.
You might as well tell all professionals in all fields of work that they're arguing on pure ignorance. What anyone does in any field is try to find as much supportive evidence as possible to support a theory. Just because it's called a theory afterward doesn't mean it's wrong. The theory of so many things are every day observed to continue being true.
I honestly don't see what you did there. You should read all relevant history pertaining to feminists and feminist movements. Some people have claimed in other TL thread that I was wrong for saying only conservatives and not feminists hate porn.
But the reality is that a lot of feminists consider porn degrading to women. A feminist is someone who 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women. 3. feminine character.
Now, In other countries feminists might be libertarian or liberal, but in the U.S. feminists, or at least a large portion of those who call themselves feminists, deny shaving personal areas of their body, call porn degrading to women, and are generally abrasive with men who try to argue for male rights.
That wasn't a comment of ignorance, because feminists created the law Age of Consent in the first place. They are continuing to try to raise it in countries worldwide. This is not pertinent to the OP, but pertinent to you attempting to discredit an argument by calling it ignorance and simply re-quoting it.
Yes, of course biology and genetical predispositions play a role in an (human) animal's behaviour. Yes, there is much more to it than you might learn from your biology class, even if you might not like it.
Please tell me, I'm afraid I am ignorant enough that I dont understand much of the role of genetics and biochemistry in shaping and creating the brain and thus the mind, nor do I know much about how the ten parts of the brain work together, and what role neurotransmitters and the size of the PFC (prefrontal cortex) have in the creation of emotions and affect on decisions and thoughts, since Phineas Gage doesn't teach us much at all of how small bits of gray matter shape our behavior. Of course I don't understand much about disorders either, such as schizophrenia. I know about, the misfiring and miscommunication of the brain (not to be confused with dissociative personality disorder or split personality disorder) that generates emotions like fear, anger, or love, and can generate perceptual hallucinations across any of the senses, and how this means a person can have thoughts of fear or anger or suspicion towards complete strangers that they now believe they know. There must be more to all this stuff than that, people are more complicated than the construction and proper working of all the parts of the brain and the role genetics plays in shaping the brain and telling it what kind of chemicals to generate, how large to grow, how to make each piece of it, and so on. I fear its like the allegory of Plato's cave, where, through my ignorance and inability to see what you have seen, want to pass you off and discredit you, since the allegory wasn't simply some "What if" exercise but actually a real representation of people in all times.
I feel it is unfair, mystics like you call scientists shortsighted yet never reveal anything of that knowledge of what people are that seems so unattainable to people using logical and rational processes in decoding the workings of a biological mechanism. Please don't leave us in the dark if you have such powerful knowledge. I'm extremely serious. You clearly know something I don't about what makes people. What do you know that I miss?
On December 19 2011 13:02 liberal wrote: It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.
Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.
What if you cant get a relationship you want? prior to women's rights and divorce, some women in monogamous society had to contend with the notion that they would be without a relationship their whole life. Even If they wanted one, they couldn't. since the ratio of men to women favors women in almost all societies, over time, the ratio disparity causes women to be alone their whole life who felt desperately in need of a mate. Now, given the anti-male sentiment in here, go tell those women that "what if I can't get a husband" isn't a valid argument for wanting to change the laws and social rules regarding divorce and relationship freedom.
I feel it is unfair, mystics like you call scientists shortsighted yet never reveal anything of that knowledge of what people are that seems so unattainable to people using logical and rational processes in decoding the workings of a biological mechanism. Please don't leave us in the dark if you have such powerful knowledge. I'm extremely serious. You clearly know something I don't about what makes people. What do you know that I miss?
I love how you phrased every single word in this paragraph.
I also hope you two can show al your cards so we all see the totality of each of your arguments
On December 19 2011 06:46 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
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.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker. As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
eugenics does in fact occur in nature. the healthy wealthy more intelligent bearing more offspring would be proof of that. Of course he's correct, buit it is politically incorrect to say so, because "all men are created equal" even when the numbers prove otherwise. People entrenched in the dogma will discredit such ideas with personal bias and magical thinking rather than rationality and some logical process.
of course what this person is saying is actually factual. Die hard Faithists in the fairy tale world of "genes and genetics have no power to create inequality in man" ignore it.
Drawing parallels from even closely related primates is very dangerous. Chimpanzees and bonobos are closest to us in the tree of life, and yet look at how different they are in behavior.
The argument isn't that genes have no power. The real questions you're not asking are: How do genes influence THIS behavior? What is the net reproductive gain? In what situations? What is their contribution, their mechanism, and the co-occuring environmental inputs that result in this specific behavior?
I'll give you an example (see note at bottom). Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain that has been linked to aggression, among other behaviors. Now, suppose naturally occurring genetic variation results in receptors that bind serotonin with differing affinity and/or differing levels of activation. Variants of the receptor that bind serotonin weakly have been found to be overrepresented in prison populations among those who have committed violent crime. Suppose also that longitudinal studies find people with these variants to be at higher risk of committing violent crime. Should we then declare our work done and that violent crime is partially genetic?
No, that would be a gross mistake. Because as it turns out, the mechanisms are critical. A simple wikipedia search dispels that by showing all the different ways that serotonin can influence behavior. Even more importantly, in the last decade, we've found many many examples where gene regulation results in very different behavioral outcomes depending on the environment. Epigenetics actually has a massive influence on this feedback loop between genetics and environment.
Before chalking something up to "genetics", it's worthwhile to examine the exact claim that is being made. Furthermore, note that heritability is not notable, it's the amount of variation in behavior that is predicted by the variation in genetics that is interesting. So, without pinning down a panel of candidate genes and/or their regulatory state, it's very difficult to make a solid claim about genetics and behavior.
I'll summarise. The main criticisms that I and several others in this thread have of genetic explanations as touted by the popular media are:
1. Current evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions. 2. Not accounting for nuances in how genes work. 3. Overrepresenting the amount of behavioral variation that is explained by genetic variation, and that's not even counting in epigenetic changes caused by cultural or other environmental inputs. 4. Underaccounting for the variation caused by cultural/environmental input. 5. Last, but not least, the whole "it's inborn!" bullcrap that's basically a cop-out. Details matter.
Note about serotonin example: I've read the papers, but it was some months ago and some details might be slightly inaccurate, so take it as a hypothetical example, it still works.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
On December 19 2011 08:52 Humanfails wrote: [quote]
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker. As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
eugenics does in fact occur in nature. the healthy wealthy more intelligent bearing more offspring would be proof of that. Of course he's correct, buit it is politically incorrect to say so, because "all men are created equal" even when the numbers prove otherwise. People entrenched in the dogma will discredit such ideas with personal bias and magical thinking rather than rationality and some logical process.
of course what this person is saying is actually factual. Die hard Faithists in the fairy tale world of "genes and genetics have no power to create inequality in man" ignore it.
Drawing parallels from even closely related primates is very dangerous. Chimpanzees and bonobos are closest to us in the tree of life, and yet look at how different they are in behavior.
The argument isn't that genes have no power. The real questions you're not asking are: How do genes influence THIS behavior? What is the net reproductive gain? In what situations? What is their contribution, their mechanism, and the co-occuring environmental inputs that result in this specific behavior?
I'll give you an example (see note at bottom). Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain that has been linked to aggression, among other behaviors. Now, suppose naturally occurring genetic variation results in receptors that bind serotonin with differing affinity and/or differing levels of activation. Variants of the receptor that bind serotonin weakly have been found to be overrepresented in prison populations among those who have committed violent crime. Suppose also that longitudinal studies find people with these variants to be at higher risk of committing violent crime. Should we then declare our work done and that violent crime is partially genetic?
No, that would be a gross mistake. Because as it turns out, the mechanisms are critical. A simple wikipedia search dispels that by showing all the different ways that serotonin can influence behavior. Even more importantly, in the last decade, we've found many many examples where gene regulation results in very different behavioral outcomes depending on the environment. Epigenetics actually has a massive influence on this feedback loop between genetics and environment.
Before chalking something up to "genetics", it's worthwhile to examine the exact claim that is being made. Furthermore, note that heritability is not notable, it's the amount of variation in behavior that is predicted by the variation in genetics that is interesting. So, without pinning down a panel of candidate genes and/or their regulatory state, it's very difficult to make a solid claim about genetics and behavior.
I'll summarise. The main criticisms that I and several others in this thread have of genetic explanations as touted by the popular media are:
1. Current evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions. 2. Not accounting for nuances in how genes work. 3. Overrepresenting the amount of behavioral variation that is explained by genetic variation, and that's not even counting in epigenetic changes caused by cultural or other environmental inputs. 4. Underaccounting for the variation caused by cultural/environmental input. 5. Last, but not least, the whole "it's inborn!" bullcrap that's basically a cop-out. Details matter.
Note about serotonin example: I've read the papers, but it was some months ago and some details might be slightly inaccurate, so take it as a hypothetical example, it still works.
I sincerely appreciate your efforts at articulating the viewpoint of the not-completely-ignorant members of this thread. But for your own sake I hope you're willing to let the troll have his bottle when he inevitably strawmans the living hell out of everything you say in the most condescending manner imaginable.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
If that's the case, then why do we not see this in cohabitation? After all, there are no legal restrictions in place to prevent multi-habitation.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
Thats a strange video about the topic
Also, Lee Kuan Yew has strong biases and comparatively little science to back up his claims.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
Thats a strange video about the topic
Social darwinism to explain variations of a measure as fucking dumb as the IQ.
Maybe we can add blood type theory to the mix in order to create the most stupid, biased, pseudo-scientific and borderline racist claims.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
On December 19 2011 14:25 Humanfails wrote: That wasn't a comment of ignorance, because feminists created the law Age of Consent in the first place. They are continuing to try to raise it in countries worldwide. This is not pertinent to the OP, but pertinent to you attempting to discredit an argument by calling it ignorance and simply re-quoting it.
You're dumber than bricks if you think the historical accuracy of your claim is what people were attacking. I'm sure age of consent laws had nothing to do with young girls being married off to their father's friends at the age of 12, (or 7 apparently, in Delaware lol), and everything to do with all feminists being bitter ugly old ladies concerned for only their own ability to attract men.
Your ability to spout out seemingly scientific "ideas" contrasted with crazy assertions like that make it impossible to take you seriously.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.
On the other hand, the people asking "why" seem to be coming from a very young-adult male perspective on the issue of human sexuality, so naturally the idea of multiple partners not only seems very attractive but also very doable. Not exactly a representative cross-section of society, or a good place to look for measured, reasoned analysis of relationships.
Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.
"What if they can't get a wife" is a potentially serious sociological concern for places like China and the Middle East where millions of young men have no prospect for married life because there's no damn wimmins around.
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 someone is dumb enough to have that many women in their lives, let them.
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.
It certainly isn't stopping cults from destroying children. And religious organizations should have no say on people who don't belong in their cult.
That's like Apple suing you for violating user rights for services you haven't used.
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.
So marriage is just a system to force women act against their nature? LOL But well I guess if prostitution was legalized 80% of men wouldn't even give shit about a stable sex partner.
But that would be just guessing, also you are making theories about things we have very little experience of in the modern western world. In the societies where polygamy is normal marriage is rarely invoked by the women?
implying prostitution was illigal, wtf ?!
I think from the childs perspectiv it's the best way to have 1 mother and 1 father.. I somehow can't imagen having 4 mothers...
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races. Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.
There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.
I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'
Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.
On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote:
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.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races. Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.
There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.
I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'
Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.
I've noticed cultural pattern. Women don't want to share their man with another woman.
It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.
On the other hand, the people asking "why" seem to be coming from a very young-adult male perspective on the issue of human sexuality, so naturally the idea of multiple partners not only seems very attractive but also very doable. Not exactly a representative cross-section of society, or a good place to look for measured, reasoned analysis of relationships.
Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.
"What if they can't get a wife" is a potentially serious sociological concern for places like China and the Middle East where millions of young men have no prospect for married life because there's no damn wimmins around.
I am only half-joking. Polygamy could be useful in certain situations, e.g. if a population bottleneck occurs. Then it would be better for every woman to have 3 men and vice versa. (from a genetical perspective)
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Calm your hormones man, he even made sure to write women "typically" follow the money, which is very reasonable. In fact, what he wrote is true to EVERYONE on earth because we ALL (typically) follow the money.
On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote:
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.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races. Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.
There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.
I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'
Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.
Well, I haven't noticed that women were going to rich guys, and I know plenty of men who married rich women and for whom it has been part of the choice. Your "pattern" is as relevant as people who say that Jews are naturally greedy and dishonest or black people violent and stupid.
Greed is common to all humanity. Saying that women go for money and rich people rather that men they love is plain sexist, period.
On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote:
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.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Calm your hormones man, he even made sure to write women "typically" follow the money, which is very reasonable. In fact, what he wrote is true to EVERYONE on earth because we ALL (typically) follow the money.
Keep in touch with reality man.
Right. I don't have any problem saying that people are greedy. But that's really not the point.
His point is that women specifically go for rich partners. Otherwise the comment loses all relevance to the topic since men would also marry rich women and that's pretty much even, and polygamy / andry is fine.
The same way if you say Jews are greedy, it's a racist comment, and it's not about all humanity being greedy. Otherwise you don't say Jews are greedy but that people are greedy. You can't say that saying that Jews are greedy is an ok comment because everybody is greedy anyway.
On December 20 2011 07:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: His point is that women specifically go for rich partners. Otherwise the comment loses all relevance to the topic since men would also marry rich women and that's pretty much even, and polygamy / andry is fine.
The point would still be relevant for the topic since a disproportional amount of rich people is male.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
at least his post was on topic though it was sexiest as hell. your just insulting the mods sayin there not doing there job. which i believe is agianst the rules. let them moderate this forum. you post on topic. and we all get temp bans cause im just as worthless as you
On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote:
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.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races. Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.
There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.
I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'
Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.
Well, I haven't noticed that women were going to rich guys, and I know plenty of men who married rich women and for whom it has been part of the choice. Your "pattern" is as relevant as people who say that Jews are naturally greedy and dishonest or black people violent and stupid.
Greed is common to all humanity. Saying that women go for money and rich people rather that men they love is plain sexist, period.
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.
I am only half-joking. Polygamy could be useful in certain situations, e.g. if a population bottleneck occurs. Then it would be better for every woman to have 3 men and vice versa. (from a genetical perspective)
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.
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.
On December 20 2011 07:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 20 2011 06:41 Euronyme wrote:
On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote:
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.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races. Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.
There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.
I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'
Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.
Well, I haven't noticed that women were going to rich guys, and I know plenty of men who married rich women and for whom it has been part of the choice. Your "pattern" is as relevant as people who say that Jews are naturally greedy and dishonest or black people violent and stupid.
Greed is common to all humanity. Saying that women go for money and rich people rather that men they love is plain sexist, period.
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.
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.
I am only half-joking. Polygamy could be useful in certain situations, e.g. if a population bottleneck occurs. Then it would be better for every woman to have 3 men and vice versa. (from a genetical perspective)
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)
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.
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.
I think there's a wide margin of difference between "shallow" and "prostitute".
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.
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.
On December 20 2011 07:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 20 2011 06:41 Euronyme wrote:
On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:33 sirachman wrote:
On December 19 2011 08:28 RoosterSamurai wrote:
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.
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?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?
Pathetic.
Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races. Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.
There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.
I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'
Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.
Well, I haven't noticed that women were going to rich guys, and I know plenty of men who married rich women and for whom it has been part of the choice. Your "pattern" is as relevant as people who say that Jews are naturally greedy and dishonest or black people violent and stupid.
Greed is common to all humanity. Saying that women go for money and rich people rather that men they love is plain sexist, period.
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.
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.
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.
I am only half-joking. Polygamy could be useful in certain situations, e.g. if a population bottleneck occurs. Then it would be better for every woman to have 3 men and vice versa. (from a genetical perspective)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
I personally think polygamy is disrespectful to the multiple partners and would never pursue a polygamous relationship...but it's their lives and as long as they're not hurting themselves with jealousy/trying to exploit taxes somehow I don't understand why they shouldn't just be left alone.
EDIT : I bet the kids love Christmas time though with all the parents around to give presents. :D lol
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
On December 20 2011 18:58 vetinari wrote: Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison).
Cheating is not equivalent to polygamy. Moreover I have no doubt that such laws would be used disproportionately to punish women, minorities, and the poor. I think that the social stigma of cheating as well as the possibility of civil penalties is enough.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example.
So what? Typical Western societies disallow a wide variety of behavior for obvious reasons. It's clear that the consequences of banning polygamy are not 'disastrous'. There is ample evidence of polygamist communities operating within Western societies (or, you know, simple logic) to conclude that women and children (and, as vetinari noted, young men as well) are mistreated and abused in polygamist societies. If polygamy were legal, many of these sects would not be breaking a single law and would be able to continue their abhorrent and destructive behavior indefinitely. Without fear of legal consequences other sects would probably spring up as well. The latter point is extrapolation, but the first is not -- communities like Bountiful would be able to operate freely.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced.
I agree, for what it's worth. The fact that there are instances of polygamy in which the parties involved all seem to be giving reasonably informed consent does not change my opinion in the slightest.
On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
This is a really dumb statement.
I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these.
On December 20 2011 18:58 vetinari wrote: Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison).
Cheating is not equivalent to polygamy. Moreover I have no doubt that such laws would be used disproportionately to punish women, minorities, and the poor. I think that the social stigma of cheating as well as the possibility of civil penalties is enough.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example.
So what? Typical Western societies disallow a wide variety of behavior for obvious reasons. It's clear that the consequences of banning polygamy are not 'disastrous'. There is ample evidence of polygamist communities operating within Western societies (or, you know, simple logic) to conclude that women and children (and, as vetinari noted, young men as well) are mistreated and abused in polygamist societies. If polygamy were legal, many of these sects would not be breaking a single law and would be able to continue their abhorrent and destructive behavior indefinitely. Without fear of legal consequences other sects would probably spring up as well. The latter point is extrapolation, but the first is not -- communities like Bountiful would be able to operate freely.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced.
I agree, for what it's worth. The fact that there are instances of polygamy in which the parties involved all seem to be giving reasonably informed consent does not change my opinion in the slightest.
On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
This is a really dumb statement.
I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these.
Except that you have no evidence that it causes more harm than it does good! In none of the circumstances where polygamy is involved and the net result of all circumstances is obviously negative are you able to single out polygamy and say "this is a problem." There's no way to conclude that polygamy is a bad thing from this, one can only conclude that in certain circumstances polygamy can be a bad thing. We've never tried it in most of the societies where women aren't treated as pure objects and property.
To conclude that polygamy does more harm than good most of the time and on the whole, one would need to be able to single it out as a variable, which hasn't been done. We don't have studies on it when the adults participating are informed and consenting, because it isn't legal!
Your argument is invalid: "Polygamy is historically been a bad thing in most of the situations it's been used in. Therefore, polygamy is always going to be more harmful to society than any positive benefits derived from it." This isn't valid!
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
Unless you do not believe in mathematics, it should be easy for you to understand that small-scale polygamist communities are essentially unsustainable; any society which relies on having several wives for each older male must necessarily exile most of their younger males in the interests of preventing social unrest. Large-scale polygamist communities (i.e., societies) inevitably result in social unrest because there are simply not enough wives to go around (this is well documented in countries where sex-selective abortion or sex-selective infanticide is common). It's not even a matter of data (although there is ample data in both scenarios) -- these are just structural, logical consequences of polygamy.
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
The making popygamy legal would lead to widespread polygamy....
Also your second statement means jack shit and makes your ending conclusion hugely suspect.
Nowhere in there do you quantify how much harmful this would be to our world even if you take all those statements for truth.
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
The making popygamy legal would lead to widespread polygamy....
Also your second statement means jack shit and makes your ending conclusion hugely suspect.
Nowhere in there do you quantify how much harmful this would be to our world even if you take all those statements for truth.
oh god.
Women are attracted to high status males. Women are often willing to share high status males. Hence, polygamy will be widespread where it is legal.
Very well. Let as assume that my second statement means nothing.
Men (M) without wives and children (WC) have the same to lose as men with wives and children. P = P + WC WC = P - P WC = 0 Therefore, Wives and children have no worth to men.
I think the law gives too much respect to religion and religious practices. That being said, I'm also having a hard time understanding what exactly is morally/ethically wrong about polygamy...
On December 20 2011 20:46 synapse wrote: I think the law gives too much respect to religion and religious practices. That being said, I'm also having a hard time understanding what exactly is morally/ethically wrong about polygamy...
Absolutely is nothing morally/ethically wrong about polygamy.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that polygamy, in and of itself, is wrong. The problem is the consequences of polygamy.
Just like there is nothing morally/ethical wrong choosing to not have a child, because you believe you would not make a good father. But if every man decided that they would not make a good father, and hence not have children . . . humanity would go extinct. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but you get the general idea.
The anti-polygamists maintain that polygamy has consequences that are sufficiently harmful to warrant it staying illegal. The pro-polygamists claim that either polygamy has no such consequences or that it is worth it, in the name of liberty.
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
Without getting in between your little tussle, let me say my own answers:
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. N people without wives and children have less to lose. N in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. N in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. Y in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. N
just being honest. I think your sliding on a slippery slope.
Not to mention that cohabitation is in fact not illegal RIGHT NOW, yet you don't have that many powerful men living with multiple women. (Note that this does not apply to the US, where unlawful cohabitation seems to in fact be illegal, where exactly the line is drawn regarding this, I have no idea, it seems it is actually illegal for a man and a woman to live together in certain states without being married. Having sex and not living together is however perfectly fine, go figure.).
I think the matter of keeping polygamy illegal is more to do with keeping marriage and estate laws simple. Say for example you have a 60 year old woman, with 2 husbands, one has been her husband for 40 years, other for 5 years. The woman dies, how should her estate be distributed? Are her 2 husbands now married to eachother? There's just a whole lot of legislation you need to change in order to make it legal and fair to everyone and it is not widespread enough for that to be reasonable.
On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
Unless you do not believe in mathematics, it should be easy for you to understand that small-scale polygamist communities are essentially unsustainable; any society which relies on having several wives for each older male must necessarily exile most of their younger males in the interests of preventing social unrest. Large-scale polygamist communities (i.e., societies) inevitably result in social unrest because there are simply not enough wives to go around (this is well documented in countries where sex-selective abortion or sex-selective infanticide is common). It's not even a matter of data (although there is ample data in both scenarios) -- these are just structural, logical consequences of polygamy.
No. First, you're assuming that legalizing polygamy is the same as it becoming ubiquitous. Just because it is legal does not mean everyone would be a member of such a family. History would suggest that I am right here, polygamy was legal in most societies in history and most families did not partake. Secondly, you're assuming that there would never be women with multiple husbands, which would be legal also. Thus, this entire point is invalid.
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
People with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society: More likely yes, definitely going to? No. People without wives and children have less to lose: Not necessarily. I disagree with this premise. Many people don't want wives or children, and there are plenty of poor families who have less than rich single men/women. In a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. Yes, but the same is true now, less than half of all eligible people in the U.S. are married now. in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. No, I don't agree, based upon my previous refutation. in a society with widespread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. No, I don't agree.
You are also ignoring the entire idea that a woman might have multiple husbands, which would also be legal.
The argument isn't even valid even if you assume that all the premises are true. The conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises. You also ignore the concept that the net benefits of polygamy (freedom and liberty and all that, and other non-visible benefits, like potentially less STD through less cheating) might outweigh any negatives.
On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
Unless you do not believe in mathematics, it should be easy for you to understand that small-scale polygamist communities are essentially unsustainable; any society which relies on having several wives for each older male must necessarily exile most of their younger males in the interests of preventing social unrest. Large-scale polygamist communities (i.e., societies) inevitably result in social unrest because there are simply not enough wives to go around (this is well documented in countries where sex-selective abortion or sex-selective infanticide is common). It's not even a matter of data (although there is ample data in both scenarios) -- these are just structural, logical consequences of polygamy.
No. First, you're assuming that legalizing polygamy is the same as it becoming ubiquitous. Just because it is legal does not mean everyone would be a member of such a family. History would suggest that I am right here, polygamy was legal in most societies in history and most families did not partake. Secondly, you're assuming that there would never be women with multiple husbands, which would be legal also. Thus, this entire point is invalid.
There would be women with multiple husbands.
But there would be much more men with multiple wives.
On December 20 2011 18:58 vetinari wrote: Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison).
Cheating is not equivalent to polygamy. Moreover I have no doubt that such laws would be used disproportionately to punish women, minorities, and the poor. I think that the social stigma of cheating as well as the possibility of civil penalties is enough.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example.
So what? Typical Western societies disallow a wide variety of behavior for obvious reasons. It's clear that the consequences of banning polygamy are not 'disastrous'. There is ample evidence of polygamist communities operating within Western societies (or, you know, simple logic) to conclude that women and children (and, as vetinari noted, young men as well) are mistreated and abused in polygamist societies. If polygamy were legal, many of these sects would not be breaking a single law and would be able to continue their abhorrent and destructive behavior indefinitely. Without fear of legal consequences other sects would probably spring up as well. The latter point is extrapolation, but the first is not -- communities like Bountiful would be able to operate freely.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote: The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced.
I agree, for what it's worth. The fact that there are instances of polygamy in which the parties involved all seem to be giving reasonably informed consent does not change my opinion in the slightest.
On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
This is a really dumb statement.
I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these.
It pretty much is a logical extension of that argument. You remove freedom by banning an act you say harms society. Do you agree alcohol should be banned as well?
Not to mention that cohabitation is in fact not illegal RIGHT NOW, yet you don't have that many powerful men living with multiple women. (Note that this does not apply to the US, where unlawful cohabitation seems to in fact be illegal, where exactly the line is drawn regarding this, I have no idea, it seems it is actually illegal for a man and a woman to live together in certain states without being married. Having sex and not living together is however perfectly fine, go figure.).
I think the matter of keeping polygamy illegal is more to do with keeping marriage and estate laws simple. Say for example you have a 60 year old woman, with 2 husbands, one has been her husband for 40 years, other for 5 years. The woman dies, how should her estate be distributed? Are her 2 husbands now married to eachother? There's just a whole lot of legislation you need to change in order to make it legal and fair to everyone and it is not widespread enough for that to be reasonable.
Well, yes, monogamy has been the norm amongst societies, because a) only the high status (rich/powerful) men could have multiple wives/partners/concubines and b) monogamy increases the fitness of the society compared to polygamous ones. I mean, its been the norm for the men to go to war while the women were kept safe. For the same reason: it helps the group survive better. (monogamy increases the fitness of society, in that women in a monogamous relationship have more children on average than women in polygamous relationship . Population is power, when everyone has roughly the same technology.)
The lack of powerful men cohabitating with multiple women (other than hefner :D), is a result of polygamy being greatly frowned upon. Cohabitating with multiple women is, after all, de facto polygamy. Only people who don't give a crap about society's opinion openly have polygamous relationships. Powerful men generally have to give a crap about society's opinion or they lose their power. In addition, of course, women are conditioned from young age to want monogamy. Often, they will settle for the illusion of monogamy. Its hard to maintain the illusion if you are having FFM threesomes. (Amusingly enough, de facto polygamy is extremely common in retirement villages. Since old women greatly outnumber old men, the women have to share. The requirement is that outward respectability is maintained. I was actually working at one today. Its a shame that society is now stratified by age rather than gender. You can learn so much more by spending time with older folks.)
The logistics are not that hard. Divide evenly if the title holder dies intestate. Mind you, estate laws need fixing anyway. If you and your wife died in a car crash, and you had no children, your wife's family would get all joint assets. (VIC, Australia).
Tip of the day: make sure you have a valid will. Then make sure again.
On December 20 2011 21:08 Whitewing wrote:No. First, you're assuming that legalizing polygamy is the same as it becoming ubiquitous. Just because it is legal does not mean everyone would be a member of such a family. History would suggest that I am right here, polygamy was legal in most societies in history and most families did not partake. Secondly, you're assuming that there would never be women with multiple husbands, which would be legal also. Thus, this entire point is invalid.
You appear to be conflating my argument with vetinari's (or just reading my posts poorly). I do not believe that legalization of polygamy would cause it to become a widespread practice; I am merely asserting that widespread practice of polygamy has obvious negative repercussions.
The more relevant concern is the effect of legalization of polygamy on small communities that are already practicing polygamy illegally. Such communities would be free to subjugate and brainwash women, commit de facto sex abuse against young girls by marrying them off to old men (with the consent of their parents, of course), and exile their young men into the rest of society with no useful skills the day they reach the age of majority. Polygamy laws are essentially the only legal measure preventing such communities from forming and existing, and the only means by which such despicable individuals can be punished.
On December 20 2011 21:48 blah_blah wrote: The more relevant concern is the effect of legalization of polygamy on small communities that are already practicing polygamy illegally. Such communities would be free to subjugate and brainwash women, commit de facto sex abuse against young girls by marrying them off to old men (with the consent of their parents, of course), and exile their young men into the rest of society with no useful skills the day they reach the age of majority. Polygamy laws are essentially the only legal measure preventing such communities from forming and existing, and the only means by which such despicable individuals can be punished.
If polygamy laws are in fact the only legal measure in your country to prevent brainwashing and sexual abuse....well, I don't know what to say.
On December 20 2011 21:43 Tyrant0 wrote:It pretty much is a logical extension of that argument. You remove freedom by banning an act you say harms society. Do you agree alcohol should be banned as well?
You realize that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of acts are legally banned because they are deemed (rightly or wrongly) to, on balance, harm society right? Are you upset about all of them, or just polygamy? How about child pornography? Are you outraged by society's refusal to allow you to create or possess child pornography? I mean, it's like you haven't thoroughly read a single thing I've posted in this thread.
Why don't you make the slightest effort to be a good poster and only post when you have something of minor intellectual value to contribute.
On December 20 2011 22:07 sulliwan wrote: If polygamy laws are in fact the only legal measure in your country to prevent brainwashing and sexual abuse....well, I don't know what to say.
I live in a country that has plenty of laws aimed at preventing sexual abuse of minors. These laws are particularly hamstrung when the communities exist in sparsely populated areas, when children are brought up to believe that acts constituting sexual abuse are not sexual abuse, when they live in fear of their elders and may be coerced into being uncooperative with authorities, and when their parents are complicit in the abuse.
As for 'brainwashing', indoctrination of children is probably one of the most legally complex issues imaginable and there is very little (legally speaking) separating indoctrination in polygamist societies with indoctrination in typical conservative, religious societies. Consequently it is basically untouchable from a legal sense, short of comprehensive, smoking gun-type evidence that never could be obtained in practice.
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.
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.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
People with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society: More likely yes, definitely going to? No. People without wives and children have less to lose: Not necessarily. I disagree with this premise. Many people don't want wives or children, and there are plenty of poor families who have less than rich single men/women. In a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. Yes, but the same is true now, less than half of all eligible people in the U.S. are married now. in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. No, I don't agree, based upon my previous refutation. in a society with widespread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. No, I don't agree.
You are also ignoring the entire idea that a woman might have multiple husbands, which would also be legal.
The argument isn't even valid even if you assume that all the premises are true. The conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises. You also ignore the concept that the net benefits of polygamy (freedom and liberty and all that, and other non-visible benefits, like potentially less STD through less cheating) might outweigh any negatives.
Of course I'm ignoring the idea that women might have multiple husbands. I believe that men are polygamous by nature (want as many women as possible, above their mininum attractiveness standard), and that women want the best man they can get. These are, after all, the optimal mating strategy of each. Men have effectively infinite reproductive capacity. Female human reproductive capacity is extremely limited. Observed in all species of animal where the female bears the larger reproductive cost. (the exception is seahorses. Since males carry the fertilized eggs, the males are choosy, while the females distribute their eggs as widely as they can.) Men don't want to share a women, because that seriously fucks up his reproductive ability. Women don't mind sharing as much, because the cost of sharing a man is financial, not biological. (she loses access to a portion of his resources, but has full access to his genes.)
I don't ignore the concept that there might be benefits to polygamy. I just don't think that any of the minor benefits that polygamy might bring outweights the very big downsides that I believe polygamy brings. (In addition, you could also lower STD rates by prosecuting adultery. I mean, adultery is a breach of the marriage contract, and if you breach any other contract, you do generally have to pay restitution/penalties.)
About liberty: I don't consider liberty to be a good to be pursued at all costs. Sometimes the cost of liberty is too high. Always remember that Rational Man does not exist. I genuinely believe that giving people a constrained set of choices is better for society in the long run. The societies that give the wrong sets of choices or too much choice, will fail. Those who give the right set of choices will succeed, and quite possibly be happier*.
*Consider women who want to be housewives and men who want housewives. The entry of women en masse into the fulltime workforce, has resulted in relatively lower wages (increased supply of labour -> decreased price of labour). Hence, the lower middle class, which once could live comfortably on a single wage, now requires two incomes to maintain a comparable standard of living, and is thus lower middle class women can no longer be housewives, and lower middle class men can no longer have housewives. Because choices aren't constrained by custom and law, economics forces different constraints, to the detriment of the middle class. (Incidently, america's middle class is fucked: consider that disposable income for the married couple with children with two children decreased over the 30 years to 2007, despite the fact that that couple now has two incomes!) The probability of bankruptcy/homelessness has also skyrocketed for that family, because losing one income due to injury/illness means you fall behind on the bills/mortgage. Thus, allow mass full time employment of women has resulted in lower happiness for large sections of the population. Ironically, the unhappiest people of all are single, childless women who work full time!
Ah, I love economics. Maybe I should go back to university and study this shit more formally. Its not like I'm using my finance major for anything, lol. On the other hand, being a tradie is bloody good money here in Australia, and I get to choose the hours.
On December 20 2011 21:43 Tyrant0 wrote:It pretty much is a logical extension of that argument. You remove freedom by banning an act you say harms society. Do you agree alcohol should be banned as well?
You realize that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of acts are legally banned because they are deemed (rightly or wrongly) to, on balance, harm society right? Are you upset about all of them, or just polygamy? How about child pornography? Are you outraged by society's refusal to allow you to create or possess child pornography? I mean, it's like you haven't thoroughly read a single thing I've posted in this thread.
Why don't you make the slightest effort to be a good poster and only post when you have something of minor intellectual value to contribute.
You're avoiding the question. Regardless, you're putting Polygamy into the same category as 'acts' that are often called crimes, which assumes Polygamy can't be practiced peacefully (i.e. it won't harm society). I'm not even sure why I have to restate that it's prone to abuse just like anything. So I'll ask you again. Why should alcohol, a product that can be used peacefully but prone to abuse, and kills WAY more people than Polygamy ever will, be legal? The only real difference between the two, for practicality of this argument is legality.
Thanks for telling me about tendencies of societies to ban acts that harm it, by the way. I was literally just about to rob my neighbor. Try not to come off like a pompous douche.
They are called crimes because they are illegal, not because they are wrong. An 18yo and a 17yo having sex is not wrong, but it can still be a crime.
Legal idiocy of the day: actually, if you have two families who live on opposite sides of the border between two US states, where the age of consent is 16 in both state and if the two teens are both over the age of consent in those states but under 18, they have committed a federal crime, because they are crossing state lines to have sex with a person who would be considered under the age of consent in at least one US state.
Anyway, the general assumption is while polygamy can be harmless to those involved, it usually isn't. Most alcohol drinking is usually harmless. Most people don't drink to excess, and there are laws against that too: public drunkenness is actually a crime in most places. Drunk and Disorderly Behaviour. Besides, banning alcohol was tried and it didn't work as intended. Banning polygamy has worked for millenia.
How is it Polygami if she's only a girlfriend? I thought it was being married to more than one woman, not "seeing" more than one woman ... or man for that matter.
On December 20 2011 22:28 Tyrant0 wrote:You're avoiding the question.
No, I chose not to respond to it because it was a false equivocation. I have probably written over 1000 words at this point in this thread arguing why polygamy should be illegal, and how legalization of polygamy leads to numerous negative repercussions for certain individuals and for society as a whole. You haven't challenged anything I've written.
Suppose that I believe that alcohol is categorically worse than polygamy. What does that change? Would the fact that alcohol is legal and worse for society than polygamy then imply that polygamy should be legal? Only a literal idiot would find that argument compelling, so I hope you do not. On the other hand, if alcohol is not categorically worse than polygamy than it's irrelevant to the present discussion anyways. In point of fact, there are many good reasons not to make alcohol illegal but none of them have the slightest relevance to this thread.
On December 20 2011 22:52 vetinari wrote: They are called crimes because they are illegal, not because they are wrong. An 18yo and a 17yo having sex is not wrong, but it can still be a crime.
Legal idiocy of the day: actually, if you have two families who live on opposite sides of the border between two US states, where the age of consent is 16 in both state and if the two teens are both over the age of consent in those states but under 18, they have committed a federal crime, because they are crossing state lines to have sex with a person who would be considered under the age of consent in at least one US state.
Anyway, the general assumption is while polygamy can be harmless to those involved, it usually isn't. Most alcohol drinking is usually harmless. Most people don't drink to excess, and there are laws against that too: public drunkenness is actually a crime in most places. Drunk and Disorderly Behaviour. Besides, banning alcohol was tried and it didn't work as intended. Banning polygamy has worked for millenia.
It's obvious that alcohol is for the most part, harmless, and accepted by society. The point I'm trying to make is that the generalization that "anything prone to abuse can be banned" is more than applicable to blah_blah's argument. Not only that, but the same is true in the case of alcohol, generally speaking. One has been accepted for thousands of years, the other is an extreme minority that is easy to ban.
On December 20 2011 22:28 Tyrant0 wrote:You're avoiding the question.
No, I chose not to respond to it because it was a false equivocation. I have probably written over 1000 words at this point in this thread arguing why polygamy should be illegal, and how legalization of polygamy leads to numerous negative repercussions for certain individuals and for society as a whole. You haven't challenged anything I've written.
Suppose that I believe that alcohol is categorically worse than polygamy. What does that change? Would the fact that alcohol is legal and worse for society than polygamy then imply that polygamy should be legal? Only a literal idiot would find that argument compelling, so I hope you do not. On the other hand, if alcohol is not categorically worse than polygamy than it's irrelevant to the present discussion anyways. In point of fact, there are many good reasons not to make alcohol illegal but none of them have the slightest relevance to this thread.
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 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
This is a really dumb statement.
I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these.
I've re-issued this point to you already. You dismiss it entirely on the grounds polygamy has no benefit to society, not even the freedom to practice it peacefully. So again, you've avoided the question. I'm not trying to draw the blatant comparison of 'alcohol is legal therefore polygamy should be,' rather that it's ultimately subjective and probably shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
On December 20 2011 22:55 Jamial wrote: How is it Polygami if she's only a girlfriend? I thought it was being married to more than one woman, not "seeing" more than one woman ... or man for that matter.
Under british and australian law, being in a de facto relationship (living as if married) is legally equivalent to being married. Hence being in multiple concurrent de facto relationships is legally equivant to being polygamously married.
What I mean as legally equivalent: in everything except for the use of the honorific "Mrs" and the box you check on forms, you are treated by the government as if you were married, including, but not limited to: visitation rights, asset division upon break up, taxation, welfare.
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 22:52 vetinari wrote: They are called crimes because they are illegal, not because they are wrong. An 18yo and a 17yo having sex is not wrong, but it can still be a crime.
Legal idiocy of the day: actually, if you have two families who live on opposite sides of the border between two US states, where the age of consent is 16 in both state and if the two teens are both over the age of consent in those states but under 18, they have committed a federal crime, because they are crossing state lines to have sex with a person who would be considered under the age of consent in at least one US state.
Anyway, the general assumption is while polygamy can be harmless to those involved, it usually isn't. Most alcohol drinking is usually harmless. Most people don't drink to excess, and there are laws against that too: public drunkenness is actually a crime in most places. Drunk and Disorderly Behaviour. Besides, banning alcohol was tried and it didn't work as intended. Banning polygamy has worked for millenia.
It's obvious that alcohol is for the most part, harmless, and accepted by society. The point I'm trying to make is that the generalization that "anything prone to abuse can be banned" is more than applicable to blah_blah's argument. Not only that, but the same is true in the case Alcohol, generally speaking. One has been accepted for thousands of years, the other is an extreme minority that is easy to ban.
Well, yeah. Blah_blah's point is that since polygamy is prone to abuse, and there are no downsides to banning it, it should stay banned. Its not like people aren't free to fuck whoever they want anyway (within reason).
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.
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 23:17 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.
Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.
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.
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.
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 23:17 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.
Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.
Legal Polygamy
What would be the benefit over a bunch of open relationships?
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.
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?
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?
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 23:15 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.
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 23:27 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.
Well my understanding of the area (3rd year law student) is that one cannot go through a marriage ceremony after their first marriage without a divorce with the crime in question being bigamy. Marriages that are legal elsewhere are simply not recognised in the UK. There is no such thing as a common law marriage and cohabiting couples do not receive the same rights/protection as married couples.
The arrangment here isnt technically illegal as there was no recognised marriage cerenomy after the other marriage, this seems more along the morality area as the QC has pointed out rather than legality. Im personally against polygamy as generally (but not always) these relationships are exploitative and justified by patriarchal men for their own needs.
Many people have cited islam permitting polygamy, however that isnt strictly the case as the Qur'an only permits men to take more than one wife if "he treats each wife equally. He must lavish his love and affection equally, and financially support each wife absolutely equally to the penny." which i personally find impossible.
Anyway i find the case was decided correctly and doesnt truly change the precedent, seems to me just like when Theresa May said that one man wasnt deported because he had a cat and that human rights laws were being stretched too far, but the actual decision was not really that monumental. The conservatives are seeking to get rid of the human rights act and appear to be using these tactics to do so.
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.
Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.
Legal Polygamy
What would be the benefit over a bunch of open relationships?
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.
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?
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?
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 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.
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?
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. And quite frankly I don't see them.
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. I think you are ignoring money in marriage.
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.
Look, if polygamy should be legal, you should be able to come up with some sort of simple argument showing that it is so, and showing that the effects of legalized polygamy (which I have expounded upon at some length) are not what I say they are.
Instead, your argument is as follows:
1) Legal polygamy is something which has some negative effects and could have some positive effects (presumably the existence of this legal freedom is a sufficient positive effect for you). 2) Legalized consumption and production of alcohol is something which has some negative effects and some positive effects. 3) Consumption and production of alcohol is legal. 4) Therefore polygamy should be legal.
This is obvious false equivalence. But since your grasp of logic is questionable at best, I doubt you will believe me, so I will change the words around a little bit -- I know that you'll agree that this is the logical consequence of the argument you're making!
1) Production of child pornography is something which has some negative effects (self-evident) and could have some positive effects (the end viewers of said pornography may find their urges sated by said material rather than finding victims of their own to sexually abuse). 2) Legalized consumption and production of alcohol is something which has some negative effects and some positive effects. 3) Consumption and production of alcohol is legal. 4) Therefore production of child pornography should be legal.
Tell me, Tyrant0, why are you a child pornography apologist?
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.
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
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 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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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
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?
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.
Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.
Legal Polygamy
What would be the benefit over a bunch of open relationships?
On December 20 2011 23:22 vetinari wrote:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Plus, the fact that it's possible for two closely related primate species to have very divergent mating arrangements is a giant cautionary flag against assuming that mating arrangements are set in stone.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Nope. That is the only known way to break the cycle of poverty. Look it up. Women's rights gives wealth. There are plenty of third world examples. There are still horribly impoverished people in industrialized countries.
Actually it's more that your mating strategies are over simplified and wrong. Women could also reproduce with one mate and then want another mate to raise the children, for instance. It's way more complex than "sperm is cheap eggs are expensive"
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that a measure banning all women from working out of the house would IMPROVE the economic situation of a country?!
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.
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
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?
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.
Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.
Legal Polygamy
What would be the benefit over a bunch of open relationships?
On December 20 2011 23:22 vetinari wrote:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Its still economically worth it to have two incomes but without childcare subsidies, it wouldn't be worth it for many.
If a child is really badly injured, someone needs to take time off work to look after the child. By leaving work to take care of a sick child, the family will no longer have the mothers income, and the family goes broke. If the mother gets injured and cannot work, the family goes broke. If the father gets injured and cannot work, the family goes broke. In a single income family, the family only goes broke if the father gets injured. And even then, there is the option of the father staying home while he recovers, while the mother takes a part time job to tide them over (women have it much easier to find jobs on short notice.)
The cost of living a middle class lifestyle is now greater than a single middle class income and two income households are more likely to go bankrupt.
Please, just watch the video. It explains it better than I.
Because fossil evidence shows pretty clearly that the bonobos were killed by chimpanzees.
STD rates (STD rates are higher among women than men, even after accounting for the relative ease of m->f transmission, compared to f->m transmisssion), college surveys, etc.
2000 years of christianity, inertia, Because only highly attractive males can have open relationships and such men are a minority. Women won't accept an open relationship with averagely attractive men, due to higher female sexual power while they are young.
It shouldn't be that shocking. Vetinari's claims all come from simplifying complex ideas and misattributing correlations, which is something we all do.
However, Vetinari, I would recommend you actually do research on the economic impacts of women in the workforce because the evidence is against you.
Yes the cost of living is higher, and women working became more important to alleviate this issue. However the research shows again and again that women in the workforce can strictly make the workforce stronger.
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.
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
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.
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that a measure banning all women from working out of the house would IMPROVE the economic situation of a country?!
Of course not. Allowing employers to hire and fire women as they see fit, and to pay their workers as they see fit, would.
Employment regulation is best when it is restricted to bargaining rules, minimum wages and OHS, to maximise flexibility, allow workers some bargaining power and ensure a minimum standard of living.
Anything else helps some group at the expense of everyone else.
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.
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
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.
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that a measure banning all women from working out of the house would IMPROVE the economic situation of a country?!
Of course not. Allowing employers to hire and fire women as they see fit, and to pay their workers as they see fit, would.
Employment regulation is best when it is restricted to bargaining rules, minimum wages and OHS, to maximise flexibility, allow workers some bargaining power and ensure a minimum standard of living.
Anything else helps some group at the expense of everyone else.
I fail to see how hummingbirds conclusion is incorrect based on what you are saying.
On December 21 2011 00:54 DoubleReed wrote: It shouldn't be that shocking. Vetinari's claims all come from simplifying complex ideas and misattributing correlations, which is something we all do.
However, Vetinari, I would recommend you actually do research on the economic impacts of women in the workforce because the evidence is against you.
Yes the cost of living is higher, and women working became more important to alleviate this issue. However the research shows again and again that women in the workforce can strictly make the workforce stronger.
You know that the very same research mistakes correlation for causation? E.g. companies with equal gender ratio perform better. This correlation has been widely quoted, to the point that it is assumed to be causation. But its not. There is no evidence to suggest that those companies are successful because they hire women. Rather, a closer look would show that the companies were already successful before they hired more women, thus suggesting that successful companies hire women, rather than companies becoming successful because they hired women.
Secondly, you'll find that the gender quotas in norway did the opposite of what you would suggest. They reduced company values by 20%, going by book/mv ratios.
Lastly, strictly speaking, you are correct in that women working increases the size of the workforce (men and women are equal, so adding women won't increase the quality). A higher participation rate necessarily increases GDP. However, much of the gains are illusory (does doing the laundry at a laundromat really increase productivity more than doing it at home? Is a homecooked meal really worthless?) and come at a social cost: latchkey kids, below replacement fertile, higher rates of birth defects and involuntary infertility due to delayed childbirth, increased stress, increased obesity (homecooked meals are far healthier than the processed crap that working parents make), increased illness (immune systems compromised by stress), and the list goes on.
And guess what, children with birth defects increase GDP due to their greater consumption of healthcare products, as do infertile women, with the consumption of IVF treatments.
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.
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
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.
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.
Are you seriously suggesting that a measure banning all women from working out of the house would IMPROVE the economic situation of a country?!
Of course not. Allowing employers to hire and fire women as they see fit, and to pay their workers as they see fit, would.
Employment regulation is best when it is restricted to bargaining rules, minimum wages and OHS, to maximise flexibility, allow workers some bargaining power and ensure a minimum standard of living.
Anything else helps some group at the expense of everyone else.
I fail to see how hummingbirds conclusion is incorrect based on what you are saying.
Because banning women from working is not the same as allowing employers to not hire women?
On December 21 2011 01:22 DoubleReed wrote: That wasn't the question. The question is whether banning women from working would help the economy.
No.
And its a fucking dumb question.
Please explain then. Educate me.
Because no one, not even me, is recommending that women be banned from the workforce, or even the full time workforce.
On the other hand, if women were barred from medical school, Ireland wouldn't have a shortage of doctors. I think that having enough doctors would help the irish economy. After all, sick workers are unproductive workers . . .
On December 19 2011 02:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: Polygamy is illegal in the sense that you don't have the right to marry several people, that's fine. I don't see what's the problem if someone wants to live with two girlfriends or if a woman has her lover at home. That's really nobody's business.
Now, if it's legal to have two boyfriends, and it is, and legal to live with two men, and it is, I don't see why you couldn't live with your two boyfriends.
If we talk about marriage as an institution, that's obviously an other problem.
Well said, well fucking said. No reason that two, three, or even (god forbid) four! people can't live together, why not also sleep together (this happens all the time by the way, college is a lovely example of how it can and indeed does happen, although not always with the most stellar of results emotionally) or not, all up to the individuals involved and their maturity and choice.
On December 21 2011 01:22 DoubleReed wrote: That wasn't the question. The question is whether banning women from working would help the economy.
No.
And its a fucking dumb question.
Please explain then. Educate me.
Because no one, not even me, is recommending that women be banned from the workforce, or even the full time workforce.
On the other hand, if women were barred from medical school, Ireland wouldn't have a shortage of doctors. I think that having enough doctors would help the irish economy. After all, sick workers are unproductive workers . . .
Would banning men from being doctors have the same effect in your opinion?
Please no need to get offended. I'm not asking social things. Just economics.
On December 21 2011 01:22 DoubleReed wrote: That wasn't the question. The question is whether banning women from working would help the economy.
No.
And its a fucking dumb question.
Please explain then. Educate me.
Because no one, not even me, is recommending that women be banned from the workforce, or even the full time workforce.
On the other hand, if women were barred from medical school, Ireland wouldn't have a shortage of doctors. I think that having enough doctors would help the irish economy. After all, sick workers are unproductive workers . . .
Would banning men from being doctors have the same effect in your opinion?
Please no need to get offended. I'm not asking social things. Just economics.
No, because male doctors work more hours than female doctors, and are less likely to drop out of the workforce. As a result, the shortage of doctors would increase. The problem that ireland is having, is the problem that the pill was supposed to solve: medical schools refused to take on female students because they considered it highly likely that women will stop working in the field as a result of having children. This was deemed sexist and banned.
It turns out the sexist pricks were right. Female doctors are cutting down their hours and dropping out of the full time workforce, "to balance work and life". We all know that "work/life balance" really means "work/kids" balance.
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.)
You cannot know in advance which women will effectively drop out of the labour force. But it is not in the interest of society to train people who will probably not fully utilize the training when there are people who you can be almost certain will fully utilize it. At this point, you must choose: which comes first: needs of the patient, or the desires of female students.
Anyone who would answer the latter probably shouldn't be choosing to be a doctor...
Slightly, yes. The thing is, no longer taking in female medical students, you'd be going from really bloody smart to pretty bloody smart, on average. As a result, your average doctor will be slightly less capable. However, that slight reduction in inherent capability is more than compensated for by the increase in hours worked. In the long run, the male doctor will be on average better than the female doctor, simply by weight of experience. (working more hours, you see more cases, you learn more each day, you get better quicker and for longer)
No, female doctors actually increase the cost of doctors, in a rather roundabout manner. You see, the limiting factor in the supply of doctors are the medical schools, not the cost of the doctors. As a result, if almost all medical students were men (with the occasional exception for the female supergenius), the supply of labour would actually increase. Not the supply of doctors, per se, but the amount of available doctor hours (due to men working more). Since the shortage of doctor hours would be lessened/eliminated, hospitals would not have to offer extremely high inducements to get doctors working more to make up the shortfall in labour. (which, can be up to 10k per day.)
Its also possible to import from other countries, but as you can imagine, their home countries aren't usually happy about it.
Vetinari: My problem with your posts is that you assume that all of these chores are naturally the woman's job by default. Cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc. Are men incapable of these things or something?
This "social cost" you speak of has been borne by women for centuries. Home cooked food is healthier than store bought pre-packaged meals. Of course. No one is going to contest that. Are men incapable of cooking their own food though? Of doing their own laundry? Of spending time with the kids?
I find it incredibly troubling logic to go from "obesity is a problem" to "homecooked meals are better than store bought meals" to "this is because women don't stay home and cook".
Further, a family in which "if either parent gets sick will go bankrupt" is clearly already depending on both incomes to survive. A family "which is only in trouble if the father gets sick" is clearly able to support itself on one sole income. I assume your point is that if all women weren't working, their husbands would all be making more due to lack of competition for wages. Again I find it troubling to be blaming women's involvement in the workforce for these trends, and not perhaps the gross misallocation of wealth in our nation and its growing disparity over the last several decades. There are a bunch of fun charts and graphs I posted in another thread on similar issues.
Finally, keep in mind that being a housewife, staying home and taking care of children, cleaning, cooking daily, etc, is a *lot* of work. It is not, however, socially prestigious.
"What do you do for a living?" "I'm a doctor/lawyer/engineer" "Oh wow, that's impressive!"
"What do you do for a living?" "I'm a homemaker." "Ohhh... that's great, good for you..."
Which looks better on a resume? Which carries a higher social status? Which gives you potential for future employment?
Even if we go with your flawed assertion that stagnant wages and a crumbling economy are the fault of women entering the workforce, what do you think we should do about it? What is your alternative? In such an alternative, what, aside from getting married, is a woman's option for supporting herself? What are her options if she doesn't want to spend her life tied to a man for support? Or is that so entirely off base with your idea of femininity as to be even worth considering?
In your example as to doctors in Ireland, how much of that discrepancy is due to women naturally choosing to get preggers and take off from work, and not that perhaps even when we contribute equally to the family income, that we still end up with the brunt of the housework and child rearing?
Wouldn't there just be larger demand for more medical schools and such? And with what you said you would have still have decreased labor cost because hospitals would need more doctors to cover it.
Anyway, back on topic, the real cognitive reason why multiple husbands tends not to work, and open relationships in general, is jealousy. Jealously is hardwired into us, some more than others. Of course, everything I've heard about polyamorousness I have seen says that the first thing you have to do is deprogram jealousy. It shouldn't be too surprising that without jealousy you can have stable healthy polygamous relationships.
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.
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
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?
On December 20 2011 23:57 vetinari wrote:
On December 20 2011 23:27 hummingbird23 wrote:
On December 20 2011 23:21 dUTtrOACh wrote:
On December 20 2011 23:20 hummingbird23 wrote:
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.
Is it just legal marriage you're after? If not, you're better off where you are.
Legal Polygamy
What would be the benefit over a bunch of open relationships?
On December 20 2011 23:22 vetinari wrote:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Because fossil evidence shows pretty clearly that the bonobos were killed by chimpanzees.
STD rates (STD rates are higher among women than men, even after accounting for the relative ease of m->f transmission, compared to f->m transmisssion), college surveys, etc.
2000 years of christianity, inertia, Because only highly attractive males can have open relationships and such men are a minority. Women won't accept an open relationship with averagely attractive men, due to higher female sexual power while they are young.
So many people in this thread seem under the impression that science proves that women have these tendencies; it doesn't. Evolution has left us with absurdly adaptable brains fed by absurdly complicated combinations of desires that interact in unforeseeable ways with absurdly complicated social forces. We do not currently possess anything close to the ability to predict the results of legislation based on facts about Chimps and Bonobos.
You should get more life experience before making clearly false pronouncements like the your generalization above. Having attended several famously liberal colleges, I can assure you that numerous women will "accept an open relationship with averagely attractive men." In fact, many will accept open relationships with far bellow averagely attractive men, with terrible personalities to boot. Same thing for what men will accept in open relationships with women. If this is any indication of what a more liberal society would look like, the men in this thread have nothing but their conservatism to worry about.
So, what you generalize about in your last paragraph is simply false. This shouldn't surprise anyone since your evidence for it was monkey science.
That is absolutely correct: if you believe in liberal and feminist dogma, then you cannot predict the future with any amount of accuracy, because your ideologies are dependent on a mistaken understanding of human nature.
Terrible personalities? I think thats code for narcissistic asshole, am I right? In that case, they are highly attractive men. "Nice guys" with decent jobs and average looks are unattractive. You make the mistake of conflating what you consider to good traits for a man to have with what women consider sexually attractive.
Marriage is, at it's heart, a method for solidifying a bond between two people. Whether male or female, marriage was designed so that TWO people could pledge loyalty to each other, and only each other. Later on, marriage became associated with the law and now marriage tends to affect taxes, property rights and other major laws in the modern legal system. Polygamy fucks with both of these parts of marriage hardcore. Also, polygamy in quite a few societies tends to have major problems associated with it a lot, such as children being involved, polygamy primarily being dominated by men with many women involved solely with him and rarely vice versa or the community based type, etc. Anyways, this ruling is bad because it inspires precedent for polygamy. With this precedent, bad things could happen moving forward, something that I find both objectively and subjectively disagreeable.
On December 21 2011 10:07 vetinari wrote: That is absolutely correct: if you believe in liberal and feminist dogma, then you cannot predict the future with any amount of accuracy, because your ideologies are dependent on a mistaken understanding of human nature.
I'll be charitable and assume you understand that there isn't a good argument here, only rhetoric. But, in the interest of helping you respond with more accurate ad hominems in the future, you should know that I'm a naturalist of a fairly ordinary sort. Humans are a part of nature best studied using empirical methods and all of our actions are subsumed under the laws of nature that control the motions of our parts.
We can predict plenty of things using our scientific understanding of the world, but we're bad at doing that when the systems are sufficiently complex. Humans are currently in the range of the too complex, at least on this matter. Your mistake is conflating naturalism with an overly simplistic, and as yet unjustified, reductionist of our actions to selected-for traits. The two are in no way equivalent. I for one think that current science is on the side there being very few of our actions that can be explained directly in terms of selected-for traits, and it's rare to find disagreement on this outside of evolutionary psychology (which, to level an ad hominem, is widely considered really shitty science by just about everyone outside of it).
I repeat that fossil evidence about Bonobos tells else little about how human females would react to legalized polygamy.
Terrible personalities? I think thats code for narcissistic asshole, am I right? In that case, they are highly attractive men. "Nice guys" with decent jobs and average looks are unattractive. You make the mistake of conflating what you consider to good traits for a man to have with what women consider sexually attractive.
I can correct this part pretty directly. You're mistaken in thinking I made that conflation, and your baseless assumption that I meant "narcissistic asshole" by "terrible personality" was unsurprisingly way off the mark. I just meant people who suck in a variety of ways. Some were dumb. Some were unbearably boring. Some had terrible hygiene. None of them fit the PUA community stereotype of who ought to be getting all the girls, and the fact that you assumed that they must just shows you need more life experience and less simplistic reductionism.
On December 21 2011 10:07 vetinari wrote: That is absolutely correct: if you believe in liberal and feminist dogma, then you cannot predict the future with any amount of accuracy, because your ideologies are dependent on a mistaken understanding of human nature.
Terrible personalities? I think thats code for narcissistic asshole, am I right? In that case, they are highly attractive men. "Nice guys" with decent jobs and average looks are unattractive. You make the mistake of conflating what you consider to good traits for a man to have with what women consider sexually attractive.
The "Nice Guys Finish Last" thing is actually a total myth. It just comforts all those "nice guys."
Of course there are true things about human nature and sexual attraction. You're just not actually stating any of them.
Men do not just "spread their seed" or whatever. No, men also choose mates selectively based on fitness and attraction. Women, similarly, do not just find the "strongest" or the most confident or whatever. There are several factors to attraction. For instance, a compare a goth chick and preppy chick. The preppy chick appeals to wider audience, but the goth chick appeals to niche audiences. The goth chick will get more extremely positive and more extremely negative responses, and therefore the goth chick may be able to filter out attractive partners much quicker.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 00:17 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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
I addressed this earlier. That's more of the fact that it's harder to feel jealous of a member of the opposite sex. It really has nothing to do with the mutualness of the relationship.
Consider being one of the two girls in that relationship. Oh sure, I'm having sex with both of the boy and the other girl, but shit happens and I perceive for whatever reason that he prefers her to me. That's really all it takes. And those kinds of feelings stress the relationship. Instinct and emotions isn't logic. You can have contradictory emotions about other people. You can resent and love a person at the same time.
I don't know why you think that requires extreme issues with jealousy at all.
Does anyone know some more information about this Pagan religion? I'm very interested to see how their doctrine ties in to a polygamous lifestyle. Also, could anyone here actually who has studied Islam shed some clarification on their views on polygamy? I mean, I know that some interpretations were applied in this thread, but can someone explain the actual verse? + Show Spoiler +
And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course. (4th sur 3rd verse) Taken from: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
On December 23 2011 11:49 DoubleReed wrote:Consider being one of the two girls in that relationship. Oh sure, I'm having sex with both of the boy and the other girl, but shit happens and I perceive for whatever reason that he prefers her to me. That's really all it takes. And those kinds of feelings stress the relationship. Instinct and emotions isn't logic. You can have contradictory emotions about other people. You can resent and love a person at the same time.
You're looking at the situation using certain perceptions you have of girls, which are in turn based on the majority of girls, who are heteronormative. Your assumptions fall apart when the girls in question are actually bisexual and love each other, in which case the situation resembles the one in which a heteronormative guy has no problems with his two female lovers doing each other.
Use google to do some research on polyamory. Take a look at, say, the experiences of people on the polyamory subreddit. Read The Ethical Slut.
Until you actually have some information to work with, all you're doing is generalizing based on your own limited experiences.
On December 23 2011 11:49 DoubleReed wrote:Consider being one of the two girls in that relationship. Oh sure, I'm having sex with both of the boy and the other girl, but shit happens and I perceive for whatever reason that he prefers her to me. That's really all it takes. And those kinds of feelings stress the relationship. Instinct and emotions isn't logic. You can have contradictory emotions about other people. You can resent and love a person at the same time.
You're looking at the situation using certain perceptions you have of girls, which are in turn based on the majority of girls, who are heteronormative. Your assumptions fall apart when the girls in question are actually bisexual and love each other, in which case the situation resembles the one in which a heteronormative guy has no problems with his two female lovers doing each other.
Use google to do some research on polyamory. Take a look at, say, the experiences of people on the polyamory subreddit. Read The Ethical Slut.
Until you actually have some information to work with, all you're doing is generalizing based on your own limited experiences.
Well no. I'm mostly repeating other things I've read about polyamory, as I have no actual experience on the matter. So yea, if you say so. I certainly have no idea.
Not everybody gets equally jealous anyway. Some people don't even get jealous. And even if you are a very jealous person, it's not like that's something you can't change.
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.
Wow that is certainly an interesting reason. Weird. I never thought of it like that. Women are like money and polygamists are the 1%.
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.
Wow that is certainly an interesting reason. Weird. I never thought of it like that. Women are like money and polygamists are the 1%.
But he is wrong. No society ever had 1% with 50% of the women. Maybe some kings had 20 wives tops in ancient times but by far the standard relations have always been one man one woman and no law has ever changed polygamy anyway other than in contract. There have been mistresses since forever too. I'd rather have people up front and open and with full legal rights polygamy would allow for.
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.
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.
Polygamy laws are the only thing stopping me from shacking up with some millionaire and being a concubine, that's for sure.
Don't be like that.
There's enough millionaires out there for you to get one of your very own!!
On December 19 2011 00:42 Haemonculus wrote: Hide 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.
Polygamy laws are the only thing stopping me from shacking up with some millionaire and being a concubine, that's for sure.
Well i think 50 million women out there think the same,but if money is the only reason, i don´t think this would be a stable relationship am i rite? iIf not its prostituition with a higher money lvl or not?
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.
Wow that is certainly an interesting reason. Weird. I never thought of it like that. Women are like money and polygamists are the 1%.
But he is wrong. No society ever had 1% with 50% of the women. Maybe some kings had 20 wives tops in ancient times but by far the standard relations have always been one man one woman and no law has ever changed polygamy anyway other than in contract. There have been mistresses since forever too. I'd rather have people up front and open and with full legal rights polygamy would allow for.
Some quick googlin' shows "20 wives tops" is a severe understatement. King Lukengu, supposedly has/had 800 wives. I'm sure you can find more excessive examples once you start digging through time.
Nevertheless, I doubt this is the reason polygamy is being prohibited (although I like his idea of a mono-economy, everyone only get's 1 Euro). The biggest issue I see, would be that things tend to get messy, especially in a society that strives for gender equality (hence excluding patriarchal solutions as, for example, seen in the Islam world).
Some questions I ask myself, not being too well versed in the science of polygamy;
- Are two wives married to the same husband considered married to each other?
- If one of my wives decides to marry another husband, will all my wives be considered married to said husband? More important yet - will I be? This obviously seems unlikely, but how would our relation to be described? If it's not the case, what happens to the socially critically important entity of "family"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but the options seem pretty black and white - either we have families, or a relation between two individuals is just that. In any case, jumping ahead, "family" seems to contradict "polygamy", thus leading to the question what would happen to the children in such a society..?
- What happens to the material aspect of marriage (i.e. the shared home, etc.)? Especially in the case of a divorce, how will ownership be handled? If I have 1 wife, she get's half the house, if I have 2 wives, she gets one third? Also, do her additional relationships play a role in this?
- Too many questions. Losing track of thoughts.
If anyone could help me solve these issues, for a start, in a modern-day western society, I'd be ecstatic!
- If one of my wives decides to marry another husband, will all my wives be considered married to said husband? More important yet - will I be? This obviously seems unlikely, but how would our relation to be described? If it's not the case, what happens to the socially critically important entity of "family"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but the options seem pretty black and white - either we have families, or a relation between two individuals is just that. In any case, jumping ahead, "family" seems to contradict "polygamy", thus leading to the question what would happen to the children in such a society..?
No, that's not unlikely. That's how it would be. Think of it as a marriage or civil union between multiple people. That pretty much answers all your questions right? A Family would just be the set of parents that are married to each other and their children. For instance, that could provide more financial stability for the family, as you have a larger income pool to take from.
- If one of my wives decides to marry another husband, will all my wives be considered married to said husband? More important yet - will I be? This obviously seems unlikely, but how would our relation to be described? If it's not the case, what happens to the socially critically important entity of "family"? Perhaps I'm missing something, but the options seem pretty black and white - either we have families, or a relation between two individuals is just that. In any case, jumping ahead, "family" seems to contradict "polygamy", thus leading to the question what would happen to the children in such a society..?
No, that's not unlikely. That's how it would be. Think of it as a marriage or civil union between multiple people. That pretty much answers all your questions right? A Family would just be the set of parents that are married to each other and their children. For instance, that could provide more financial stability for the family, as you have a larger income pool to take from.
That means that one member could not marry without the other members also marrying.
This would also mean that divorce would not only involve dividing custody of the children and property but also dividing the spouses.
Saying that 'marriage' relationships are limited to a single group, is confining and limiting, even as saying that it is between a single man and single woman, or two people.
I would definitely want many wives, I would treat them all well and with respect and would go for such thing only if I could sustain such reationship emotinally and financially. Basically, with responsibility.
On December 19 2011 01:12 darkscream wrote: let people do whatever they want, government should stay the fuck out of the bedroom
There aren't laws against people shacking up with as many folks as they want (at least not in America). The law only stops short of offering the legal protection of marriage to these folks. Which I'm fine with. I'm not aware of any good models for polygamous family units on a societal level that aren't exploitative. But yeah, sleep with as many women/men as you want for all I care.
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.
This is completely ridiculous. You're basically saying that anyone who doesn't have the same values as you (finding it attractive when two women do something sexual together) is overly jealous/possessive. Take a step back for a second and think about how that sounds, because there are PLENTY of men in this world who would be betrayed by that.
On December 27 2011 13:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:This is completely ridiculous. You're basically saying that anyone who doesn't have the same values as you (finding it attractive when two women do something sexual together) is overly jealous/possessive. Take a step back for a second and think about how that sounds, because there are PLENTY of men in this world who would be betrayed by that.
No, you missed the point completely.
I'm saying that if you do find it attractive when two of your lovers are sexual together (whether they are women or otherwise, as women is just the stereotypical example for most heterosexual males), then it is unlikely to make you jealous when they do each other as well as you. On the other hand, if you don't find it attractive, then it is more likely to make you jealous.
Thus my original statement, which is that jealousy is less of an issue when everyone is doing everyone (as opposed, to, say, two men who have to share one woman and have no attraction to each other).