NationStates

Neanderthaland wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The reason it would outnumber the other is that men wouldn't willingly enter into a marriage of the type.

You're just repeating yourself now. But your insistence that it is so, doesn't make it so.

Well, why would a man enter into such a marriage? Evolutionarily speaking? I've given a reason why they wouldn't.

Imperial Joseon wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:So is marriage at all.

Yes, some people marry more than once, either due to divorce, death of wife, or other reasons.

My point is that marriage is a legal construct that doesn't exist in the state of nature. Because of this, there is added incentive not to enter into such a marriage, even if such existed in the state of nature, because marriage is as much about the passing of property rights as anything else.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:You're just repeating yourself now. But your insistence that it is so, doesn't make it so.

Well, why would a man enter into such a marriage? Evolutionarily speaking? I've given a reason why they wouldn't.

A man's a sentient being, and as such can sometimes feel or act differently to what would be best in terms of evolution without feeling an irresistible urge to only have one partner and being more personlly fulfilled as a result.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:You're just repeating yourself now. But your insistence that it is so, doesn't make it so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have DNA and paternity tests now. It is possible for a man to know.

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.

These, however, are not mandatory, and in the context of marriage, have no impact on the legal parentage.

A four page thread about justice and not one mention of John Rawls.

Smh.

Even though he was a lib.

Duvniask wrote:A four page thread about justice and not one mention of John Rawls.

Smh.

Even though he was a lib.

Rawls is really good tbh, imo though his views can be encompassed generally within Kantian views of justice.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:We have DNA and paternity tests now. It is possible for a man to know.

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.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Duvniask wrote:A four page thread about justice and not one mention of John Rawls.

Smh.

Even though he was a lib.

Rawls is really good tbh, imo though his views can be encompassed generally within Kantian views of justice.

Come with me behind the veil of ignorance and I'll tell ya all about the original position.

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.

Assuming they have $3-500 dollars to blow.

Duvniask wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Rawls is really good tbh, imo though his views can be encompassed generally within Kantian views of justice.

Come with me behind the veil of ignorance and I'll tell ya all about the original position.

Kinky.

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.

I mean it cost the woman, what? 8-9k to make the kid? I think a couple of hundred bucks is pretty reasonable.

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.

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.

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.

Lots of people still get married before being financially stable.

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.

And assuming it is even legal for him to find out. Our dear enlightened Feministas have made it so in some places :^)

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.

Ah, that's why when countries want to modernize they ban that. Clearly because it is such a cultural success :^)

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:You're just repeating yourself now. But your insistence that it is so, doesn't make it so.

Well, why would a man enter into such a marriage? Evolutionarily speaking? I've given a reason why they wouldn't.

We aren't slaves to our nature.

Page 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.

We aren't slaves to our nature.

We are heavily influenced by it though. Predispositions lead to behaviors.

Page 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.

We aren't slaves to our nature.

Wait, weren't you just arguing in the philosophy thread that free will doesn't exist?

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.

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?

When I was younger, I used to think I knew everything—I knew that he was wrong, I knew that she was right, and I knew what was right or wrong. Then, as I grew up, venturing out beyond my comfort zone, learning to see things from another’s perspective, those from different backgrounds with stories to tell, I slowly learned that nothing was black and white—especially people.

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?

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.

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.

There's an evolutionary dis-incentive in the sense that a man with multiple partners will dedicate less time and resources to the woman (and her children) in question. I mean, if you have 5 wives and 5 kids with each, it makes sense that you won't be able to give all your children enough attention as a father.