Polyamorous relationships, are they damaging to society?

[Galloism]

I mean, the disagreement is about whether or not women are moral agents.

I’m proud to disagree.

Nice goalpost move. Because that wasn't the topic but I've been humoring you thus far so whatever (also like the second goalpost move you've done just as an FYI).

But given your comments it is abundantly obvious you didn't actually grasp anything I've said.

So, yeah we disagree...not sure who you're disagreeing with on the whole 'moral agents' thing because that wasn't me.

Kappa, we gottem

Can blow this thing and go home. *puts on shades as Death Star explodes in the distance*

I just disagree with the concept of “1/50,000 of men who were powerful put a burden on the other 49,999 men against their will, so men are responsible for the situation, and therefore they weren’t forced and it’s not oppression” line of argument you put forth.

It’s asinine. Absolutely asinine. “But some tiny subset of men did this, thus it’s not oppression” is a terrible attempt at dismissing the reality of the gendered horror, so you can go back and worry about the only people that actually matter to you by asserting they brought it on themselves.

It’s actually pretty crummy behavior.

[Imperialisium]

Nice goalpost move. Because that wasn't the topic but I've been humoring you thus far so whatever (also like the second goalpost move you've done just as an FYI).

But given your comments it is abundantly obvious you didn't actually grasp anything I've said.

So, yeah we disagree...not sure who you're disagreeing with on the whole 'moral agents' thing because that wasn't me.

Kappa, we gottem

Can blow this thing and go home. *puts on shades as Death Star explodes in the distance*

I just disagree with the concept of “1/50,000 of men who were powerful put a burden on the other 49,999 men against their will, so men are responsible for the situation, and therefore they weren’t forced and it’s not oppression” line of argument you put forth.

It’s asinine. Absolutely asinine. “But some tiny subset of men did this, thus it’s not oppression” is a terrible attempt at dismissing the reality of the gendered horror, so you can go back and worry about the only people that actually matter to you by asserting they brought it on themselves.

It’s actually pretty crummy behavior.

Except...I didn't make the argument. You took my words and then formulated this whole argument of your volition for some reason...hence my dismissive tone...because either some confusion happened or it looks like you're willfully constructing an argument for me. That and like half the time you do the whole "quotes" as a paraphrase of my argument don't actually reflect my statements.

My arguments thus far have been:

Men historically have been killed far less over the fact of just being a man than women have. And as such men shouldn't try to cop-out with the whole "well...women did it too," when often it was a system that men originally conceived and women were either forced/coerced/indoctrinated/ingrained with by the patriarchal society they were born into.

Which you then swerved into war, body mutilations, et cetera. All of which didn't actually address my statements in any rational way.

No where, in any statement did I make such brash comments about fractions, percentages, or marginal populations being inimical for the whole. Those are all things you alone have said.

Don't make up a fictional argument and try to pass it off as your oppositions is a lesson to be taken from this.

Now in the odd chance you're just telling me what you disagree with, yes, that is an asinine way to look at things and why I avoided using such absurd arguments.

[Galloism]

I just disagree with the concept of “1/50,000 of men who were powerful put a burden on the other 49,999 men against their will, so men are responsible for the situation, and therefore they weren’t forced and it’s not oppression” line of argument you put forth.

It’s asinine. Absolutely asinine. “But some tiny subset of men did this, thus it’s not oppression” is a terrible attempt at dismissing the reality of the gendered horror, so you can go back and worry about the only people that actually matter to you by asserting they brought it on themselves.

It’s actually pretty crummy behavior.

Except...I didn't make the argument. You took my words and then formulated this whole argument of your volition for some reason...hence my dismissive tone...because either some confusion happened or it looks like you're willfully constructing an argument for me. That and like half the time you do the whole "quotes" as a paraphrase of my argument don't actually reflect my statements.

My arguments thus far have been:

Men historically have been killed far less over the fact of just being a man than women have. And as such men shouldn't try to cop-out with the whole "well...women did it too," when often it was a system that men originally conceived and women were either forced/coerced/indoctrinated/ingrained with by the patriarchal society they were born into.

Which you then swerved into war, body mutilations, et cetera. All of which didn't actually address my statements in any rational way.

No where, in any statement did I make such brash comments about fractions, percentages, or marginal populations being inimical for the whole. Those are all things you alone have said.

Don't make up a fictional argument and try to pass it off as your oppositions is a lesson to be taken from this.

Now in the odd chance you're just telling me what you disagree with, yes, that is an asinine way to look at things and why I avoided using such absurd arguments.

Did the draft never happen?

Problem with that example is that the draft was created by Men. In fact, more than one draft system originally was supposed to include women, but Men thought it would be unfitting and speak poorly of themselves to have Women fight beside them.

The reason why it doesn't work is that if one is going to make an inference that Men had zero choice...it sort of is ruined by the fact that it was also Men who created the situation in the first place...there is a great meme for it, tasty after all these years still, called the 'Who Killed Hannibal?" Sort of explains the flaw in the argument being made by some here.

That was a tiny percentage of men. Who weren’t drafted. Oppressing the rest.

[Imperialisium]

Except...I didn't make the argument. You took my words and then formulated this whole argument of your volition for some reason...hence my dismissive tone...because either some confusion happened or it looks like you're willfully constructing an argument for me. That and like half the time you do the whole "quotes" as a paraphrase of my argument don't actually reflect my statements.

My arguments thus far have been:

Men historically have been killed far less over the fact of just being a man than women have. And as such men shouldn't try to cop-out with the whole "well...women did it too," when often it was a system that men originally conceived and women were either forced/coerced/indoctrinated/ingrained with by the patriarchal society they were born into.

Which you then swerved into war, body mutilations, et cetera. All of which didn't actually address my statements in any rational way.

No where, in any statement did I make such brash comments about fractions, percentages, or marginal populations being inimical for the whole. Those are all things you alone have said.

Don't make up a fictional argument and try to pass it off as your oppositions is a lesson to be taken from this.

Now in the odd chance you're just telling me what you disagree with, yes, that is an asinine way to look at things and why I avoided using such absurd arguments.

Problem with that example is that the draft was created by Men. In fact, more than one draft system originally was supposed to include women, but Men thought it would be unfitting and speak poorly of themselves to have Women fight beside them.

The reason why it doesn't work is that if one is going to make an inference that Men had zero choice...it sort of is ruined by the fact that it was also Men who created the situation in the first place...there is a great meme for it, tasty after all these years still, called the 'Who Killed Hannibal?" Sort of explains the flaw in the argument being made by some here.

That was a tiny percentage of men. Who weren’t drafted. Oppressing the rest.

Most men weren't drafted. At any point.

If you're trying to say that the people who drafted the legislation for Conscription practices in what I assume is the United States by what I infer from your statements were oppressing other men and thus that is the cop-out. Keep in mind that Women also couldn't vote or be elected to government office at the federal level. In short they had no legal way beyond protesting anything (which was frowned upon by society at large anyways).

Now, bear in mind, I'm not saying men weren't oppressed. Nor denying the fact that males have been oppressed.

[Galloism]

That was a tiny percentage of men. Who weren’t drafted. Oppressing the rest.

Most men weren't drafted. At any point.

If you're trying to say that the people who drafted the legislation for Conscription practices in what I assume is the United States by what I infer from your statements were oppressing other men and thus that is the cop-out. Keep in mind that Women also couldn't vote or be elected to government office at the federal level. In short they had no legal way beyond protesting anything (which was frowned upon by society at large anyways).

Now, bear in mind, I'm not saying men weren't oppressed. Nor denying the fact that males have been oppressed.

Actually, going way back before even the existence of the United States. To at least the Middle Ages if not well before.

And yes, most men weren’t drafted, just like most women aren’t killed at birth.

But, talking about the United States, and this is important, when the draft was instituted for the fourth time (and also the longest period) in 1940, women had had the vote for 20 years. Previous drafts only lasted a few years and ended when the war ended, but that one started in peacetime and went for over 30 years - with women’s vote in play.

I’m not saying women caused that mind you. Men and women caused it together, whereas men alone used the draft sparingly and only during wartime.

And it’s beside the point. When he pointed out the draft as a form of such oppression, you went “the draft was created by Men” as a rebuttal to the notion of the oppression. You don’t get to use things as a rebuttal without people inferring that means “it doesn’t count”.

[Galloism]

Ok, back to polyamorous relationships. Anyone review that study I linked to salandriagado yet?

[Imperialisium]

Most men weren't drafted. At any point.

If you're trying to say that the people who drafted the legislation for Conscription practices in what I assume is the United States by what I infer from your statements were oppressing other men and thus that is the cop-out. Keep in mind that Women also couldn't vote or be elected to government office at the federal level. In short they had no legal way beyond protesting anything (which was frowned upon by society at large anyways).

Now, bear in mind, I'm not saying men weren't oppressed. Nor denying the fact that males have been oppressed.

Actually, going way back before even the existence of the United States. To at least the Middle Ages if not well before.

And yes, most men weren’t drafted, just like most women aren’t killed at birth.

But, talking about the United States, and this is important, when the draft was instituted for the fourth time (and also the longest period) in 1940, women had had the vote for 20 years. Previous drafts only lasted a few years and ended when the war ended, but that one started in peacetime and went for over 30 years - with women’s vote in play.

I’m not saying women caused that mind you. Men and women caused it together, whereas men alone used the draft sparingly and only during wartime.

And it’s beside the point. When he pointed out the draft as a form of such oppression, you went “the draft was created by Men” as a rebuttal to the notion of the oppression. You don’t get to use things as a rebuttal without people inferring that means “it doesn’t count”.

Even then, before the modern incarnation of conscription, men being drafted were often a minority with women having little to no legal recourse in changing things on their end to help or detract from men.

Women weren't against themselves also being drafted to be equal with Men in that burden...Men in the US didn't like that notion of the fighting woman. Either in positions of power and in society it was entirely a concept that flabbergasted American men. Its why many American G.I.s were shocked to find significant numbers of women in Red Army formations. American men were shocked when a Soviet sniper visited the US to try and get the US to enter the war.

So nothing I've said is besides the point. Many of your has. Also inference and presumption are hand in hand but not exactly the same. You seem to be confusing both of those things. Also I never made ANY inference or presumption of a historical fact negating stratas of men being oppressed. In fact I've already gone out of my way to cover that angle. So your point there is?

Anyways back to Polyamorous relationships now that that lesson has been taught.

[Galloism]

Actually, going way back before even the existence of the United States. To at least the Middle Ages if not well before.

And yes, most men weren’t drafted, just like most women aren’t killed at birth.

But, talking about the United States, and this is important, when the draft was instituted for the fourth time (and also the longest period) in 1940, women had had the vote for 20 years. Previous drafts only lasted a few years and ended when the war ended, but that one started in peacetime and went for over 30 years - with women’s vote in play.

I’m not saying women caused that mind you. Men and women caused it together, whereas men alone used the draft sparingly and only during wartime.

And it’s beside the point. When he pointed out the draft as a form of such oppression, you went “the draft was created by Men” as a rebuttal to the notion of the oppression. You don’t get to use things as a rebuttal without people inferring that means “it doesn’t count”.

Even then, before the modern incarnation of conscription, men being drafted were often a minority with women having little to no legal recourse in changing things on their end to help or detract from men.

Women weren't against themselves also being drafted to be equal with Men in that burden...Men in the US didn't like that notion of the fighting woman. Either in positions of power and in society it was entirely a concept that flabbergasted American men. Its why many American G.I.s were shocked to find significant numbers of women in Red Army formations. American men were shocked when a Soviet sniper visited the US to try and get the US to enter the war.

So nothing I've said is besides the point. Many of your has. Also inference and presumption are hand in hand but not exactly the same. You seem to be confusing both of those things. Also I never made ANY inference or presumption of a historical fact negating stratas of men being oppressed. In fact I've already gone out of my way to cover that angle. So your point there is?

Anyways back to Polyamorous relationships now that that lesson has been taught.

Actually, women’s vote would have had universal support among women much earlier except they feared being drafted. It was only majority accepted by women after it became obvious this wouldn’t happen (before that it was about evenly split between for/indifferent/against).

It’s actually ironic that today it’s only women who have the right to vote. Men get the privilege To vote after the sign up to be drafted.

With a majority of women voters today, only women have the right to vote. Men have to sign up to be drafted to die before they get a vote.

[Ethel mermania]

Ok, back to polyamorous relationships. Anyone review that study I linked to salandriagado yet?

Nah, i am here for light conversation on this topic tonite

[Imperialisium]

Even then, before the modern incarnation of conscription, men being drafted were often a minority with women having little to no legal recourse in changing things on their end to help or detract from men.

Women weren't against themselves also being drafted to be equal with Men in that burden...Men in the US didn't like that notion of the fighting woman. Either in positions of power and in society it was entirely a concept that flabbergasted American men. Its why many American G.I.s were shocked to find significant numbers of women in Red Army formations. American men were shocked when a Soviet sniper visited the US to try and get the US to enter the war.

So nothing I've said is besides the point. Many of your has. Also inference and presumption are hand in hand but not exactly the same. You seem to be confusing both of those things. Also I never made ANY inference or presumption of a historical fact negating stratas of men being oppressed. In fact I've already gone out of my way to cover that angle. So your point there is?

Anyways back to Polyamorous relationships now that that lesson has been taught.

Actually, women’s vote would have had universal support among women much earlier except they feared being drafted. It was only majority accepted by women after it became obvious this wouldn’t happen (before that it was about evenly split between for/indifferent/against).

It’s actually ironic that today it’s only women who have the right to vote. Men get the privilege To vote after the sign up to be drafted.

With a majority of women voters today, only women have the right to vote. Men have to sign up to be drafted to die before they get a vote.

That's an argument I've heard but is empirically and academically unfounded.

Federal Court(s) also ruled the Male-Only Draft as Unconstitutional. Also the reason why it is still written as "Male-persons," is due to 1981 Rostker v Goldberg which was before Women were appointed to Supreme Court positions. So only have to blame fellow men for that one. Also, you do not actually lose your right to vote by not signing up for SS. You are automatically registered for SS when you vote and the loss of voting privileges and/or citizenship only applies for persons not born in the United States, any US territory, or military installation that arrives before his 26th Birthday. Further, the SS apparatus is already prepared to extend the requirement to register to Women at a moments notice with current legislation for it being studied by a commission.

So false, Men and Women do have the Right to Vote. Should you be older than 26 and not vote you are either automatically registered at the place of casting the ballot or you send an appeal and get it reinstated. At which point the only case law denying men the right to vote for not registering has been persons who decided not to vote, aiding and abetting others from registering or voting, and evading state statutes which may have additional laws regarding voting and SS.

So unless you're never going to vote its rather a moot argument.

[Galloism]

So only have to blame fellow men for that one.

Once again, how does this matter?

What’s the point in interjecting it? What are you trying to say by saying it? What objectionary point does it serve?

[New haven america]

"Hey guys, let's get back on topic!"

"Sure, but just a minute, you're completely wrong about XYZ."

"Uh-uh, no, you're actually severally mistaken, XYZ is completely correct."

"Well actually..."

[Imperialisium]

So only have to blame fellow men for that one.

Once again, how does this matter?

What’s the point in interjecting it? What are you trying to say by saying it? What objectionary point does it serve?

It matters because it contextually rams home the ridiculousness of your argument.

Now can we get back on topic.

[Galloism]

It matters because it contextually rams home the ridiculousness of your argument.

Only if you don't understand how historical oppression works.

Now can we get back on topic.

Yes, can we?

So... polygyny and its effects on society and the effect of monogamy on increasing scientific advancement. Anyone read the paper yet.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I remember Utah recently removed bigamy from felony. Bigamy is now generally illegal. Does this indicate that bigamy may be legalized in the future?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I remember Utah recently removed bigamy from felony. Bigamy is now generally illegal. Does this indicate that bigamy may be legalized in the future?

Utah is Mormon land. Who knows. Maybe. Maybe not.

[Galloism]

I remember Utah recently removed bigamy from felony. Bigamy is now generally illegal. Does this indicate that bigamy may be legalized in the future?

Utah is Mormon land. Who knows. Maybe. Maybe not.

It'll certainly make filing taxes interesting.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Utah is Mormon land. Who knows. Maybe. Maybe not.

It'll certainly make filing taxes interesting.

Only you could qualify filing taxes as interesting.

[Salandriagado]

That's not the claim that you made. You claimed that there was a statistically significant relationship between polygyny and negative outcomes.

Oh that.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2011.0290

No p-values, no discussion of statistical significance. I'll get around to reading it in detail in a bit, but just pointing out that it doesn't actually address the question asked for now.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Most polyamorous relationships are just mediocre women using socially awkward men for sex tbh. Unpleasant, but hardly the end of society as we know it.

[Albrenia]

Polygamy sounds like a legal nightmare if it goes south and someone has to decide who gets what. Also sounds way too stressful for someone like me, juggling all those relationships and the various needs.

Don't really care to judge or endorse them though.

[Thepeopl]

Most polyamorous relationships are just mediocre women using socially awkward men for sex tbh. Unpleasant, but hardly the end of society as we know it.

You have a source for that?

https://openpsychometrics.org/research/ ... polyamory/

4.9% of all women and 8.9% of all men are polyamorous.

[The Blaatschapen]

Most polyamorous relationships are just mediocre women using socially awkward men for sex tbh. Unpleasant, but hardly the end of society as we know it.

Dammit, I am not socially awkward enough for a threesome D:

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Most polyamorous relationships are just mediocre women using socially awkward men for sex tbh. Unpleasant, but hardly the end of society as we know it.

Dammit, I am not socially awkward enough for a threesome D:

Oh,this word reminds me of a TV play that makes me feel uncomfortable.I need to see something to change my mood.

[A m e n r i a]

So this topic was being debated heavily in the RWDT, and I thought I would establish a thread for itself.

Now, polyamrous relationships are still a pretty new concept to most people, and is defined as thus:

[I]s the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved.[1][2] It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy"

For more of a basic overview, see the wikipage.

Now, this is far different from the concept of Polygamy, which is described as thus:

[I]s the practice of marrying multiple spouses. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, sociologists call this polygyny. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called a group marriage.

Again, the wikipage for a more basic overview.

From these two definitions alone, they are different. They are not the same in anyway.

But here is my question. Are polyamorous relationships a problem? Do they cause problems for society? OR are they just like any other relationship?

My views is that polyamorous relationships are like any other relationship. They'll have their ups and downs, good times and bad, but they are not a danger to anyone.

So NSG, what's your view on polyamorous relationships?

Pretty new? Mate, polygamy is a thing since Indonesia was first settled, with the kings and all their concubines and wives.

I agree with you though. Polygamy is a God-given right every man has, use it if you want, don't use it if you don't. It's pretty simple.