Well, why would a man enter into such a marriage? Evolutionarily speaking? I've given a reason why they wouldn't.
Advertisement
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:34 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:35 pm
by True Refuge » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:54 pm
"One does not need to be surprised then, when 26 years later the outrageous slogan is repeated, which we Marxists burned all bridges with: to “pick up” the banner of the bourgeoisie. - International Communist Party, Dialogue with Stalin.
by Neanderthaland » Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:36 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:11 am
Neanderthaland wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Well, why would a man enter into such a marriage? Evolutionarily speaking? I've given a reason why they wouldn't.
Why would a woman? It's not advantageous for either sex for their partner to have another partner.
And yet it happens. Usually this is the result of an imbalanced power dynamic. Typically a very patriarchal society. But since we're talking about a very egalitarian society then:
1) It won't come up very often, and thus won't have a big impact on population dynamics - so that argument of yours is wrong, and
2) Will happen sometimes purely because people are weird. And have diverse sexual interests. And that's fine.
Your attempts to make polyamory into a doomsday scenario are misguided.
by Kowani » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:18 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:Why would a woman? It's not advantageous for either sex for their partner to have another partner.
And yet it happens. Usually this is the result of an imbalanced power dynamic. Typically a very patriarchal society. But since we're talking about a very egalitarian society then:
1) It won't come up very often, and thus won't have a big impact on population dynamics - so that argument of yours is wrong, and
2) Will happen sometimes purely because people are weird. And have diverse sexual interests. And that's fine.
Your attempts to make polyamory into a doomsday scenario are misguided.
You yourself said it is advantageous for a woman to have multiple partners. You're backtracking. Nevertheless, there are no drawbacks for a woman in such a relationship, because she is still aware of who her children are.
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:19 am
Kowani wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:You yourself said it is advantageous for a woman to have multiple partners. You're backtracking. Nevertheless, there are no drawbacks for a woman in such a relationship, because she is still aware of who her children are.
We have DNA and paternity tests now. It is possible for a man to know.
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:23 am
Duvniask wrote:A four page thread about justice and not one mention of John Rawls.
Smh.
Even though he was a lib.
by Kowani » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:23 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:25 am
Kowani wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:These, however, are not mandatory, and in the context of marriage, have no impact on the legal parentage.
Ignoring the fact that you think that the laws would stay the same between a monogamous society and one that allows both arrangements for a moment, you’re missing the point. The issue, according to you, is that the man has no way of knowing if a child is his, and thus cannot be sure that he has passed on his DNA. But thanks to modern technology, he can.
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:26 am
by The Emerald Legion » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:28 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Kowani wrote:Ignoring the fact that you think that the laws would stay the same between a monogamous society and one that allows both arrangements for a moment, you’re missing the point. The issue, according to you, is that the man has no way of knowing if a child is his, and thus cannot be sure that he has passed on his DNA. But thanks to modern technology, he can.
Assuming they have $3-500 dollars to blow.
by Kowani » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:30 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Kowani wrote:Ignoring the fact that you think that the laws would stay the same between a monogamous society and one that allows both arrangements for a moment, you’re missing the point. The issue, according to you, is that the man has no way of knowing if a child is his, and thus cannot be sure that he has passed on his DNA. But thanks to modern technology, he can.
Assuming they have $3-500 dollars to blow.
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:32 am
Kowani wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Assuming they have $3-500 dollars to blow.
That wasn’t as great an argument as you thought it was. People are delaying marriage because of cost already-do you really think that’ll change with multiple marriages? No, that requires fiscal security, which leaves you in a better position to check.
by The East Marches II » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:40 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Kowani wrote:Ignoring the fact that you think that the laws would stay the same between a monogamous society and one that allows both arrangements for a moment, you’re missing the point. The issue, according to you, is that the man has no way of knowing if a child is his, and thus cannot be sure that he has passed on his DNA. But thanks to modern technology, he can.
Assuming they have $3-500 dollars to blow.
by The East Marches II » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:42 am
Neanderthaland wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Well, why would a man enter into such a marriage? Evolutionarily speaking? I've given a reason why they wouldn't.
Why would a woman? It's not advantageous for either sex for their partner to have another partner.
And yet it happens. Usually this is the result of an imbalanced power dynamic. Typically a very patriarchal society. But since we're talking about a very egalitarian society then:
1) It won't come up very often, and thus won't have a big impact on population dynamics - so that argument of yours is wrong, and
2) Will happen sometimes purely because people are weird. And have diverse sexual interests. And that's fine.
Your attempts to make polyamory into a doomsday scenario are misguided.
by Page » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:41 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:00 am
by Czechostan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:43 am
by Neanderthaland » Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:27 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:Why would a woman? It's not advantageous for either sex for their partner to have another partner.
And yet it happens. Usually this is the result of an imbalanced power dynamic. Typically a very patriarchal society. But since we're talking about a very egalitarian society then:
1) It won't come up very often, and thus won't have a big impact on population dynamics - so that argument of yours is wrong, and
2) Will happen sometimes purely because people are weird. And have diverse sexual interests. And that's fine.
Your attempts to make polyamory into a doomsday scenario are misguided.
You yourself said it is advantageous for a woman to have multiple partners. You're backtracking.
Nevertheless, there are no drawbacks for a woman in such a relationship, because she is still aware of who her children are.
by Yohannes » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:58 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:34 am
Neanderthaland wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:You yourself said it is advantageous for a woman to have multiple partners. You're backtracking.
Umm... no? Not at all? It is, but that doesn't disprove anything I've said. Sperm competition only works with male partners.Nevertheless, there are no drawbacks for a woman in such a relationship, because she is still aware of who her children are.
That's not what women get into relationships with men for. What are you on about?
by Duvniask » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:47 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:Umm... no? Not at all? It is, but that doesn't disprove anything I've said. Sperm competition only works with male partners.
That's not what women get into relationships with men for. What are you on about?
That a woman cannot be cuckholded, so there is no evolutionary dis-incentive for a woman to engage in polygyny while there is an evolutionary disincentive for a man to engage in polyandry.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cessarea, DutchFormosa, Gallia-, Hurdergaryp, Ineva, Love Peace and Friendship, New Heldervinia, Nivosea, Sarolandia, Shidei, The Black Forrest, Tiami, Uiiop
Advertisement