Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:50 amEvery author has biases. People aren’t robots.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Polyamorous relationships, are they damaging to society?
Page 4 of 32
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:50 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:50 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:50 amI know you want to keep stating that polygamy is polyamory without paper work, but polyamory is not always the same.
And thus polygamy has more of a structure where one or a few people control others, which is not always the case with polyamory.
Those studies are therefore not focusing on polyamory.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:51 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:52 amWashington Resistance Army wrote:Celritannia wrote:
And it's people that make society.
Again, no evidence to suggest it damages society.
Except for the mass amount of research showing how easy it is to radicalize young dudes with nothing going for them in life, which widespread acceptance of polyamory and polygamy would create many more of.
"Mass amount of research" = some barely-disguised thinkpieces masquerading as actual science? That's news to me.
There is nothing about that that is inherent to polyamory.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:52 amGren, if it is fabricated bullshit, give us some evidence on the other hand.
I don't have qualms with consenting polyamory but you have to be fair.
I don't have qualms with consenting polyamory but you have to be fair.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:52 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:52 amLuminesa wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Unproven bullshit is unproven.
And yet, many people (mistakenly) think it is. Polyamory is no different in that regard. A harmless thing that a lot of entirely misinformed people condemn because of totally bullshit reasoning.
Someone can literally point to Solomon having 700 wives as a perfect example. Split a relatively-stable kingdom straight down the middle. Or all of the emperors who had multiple wives and partners at the same time, which caused entire empires to fall.
On a more micro level, this is peak gatekeeping. Cek is not a part of a blob, and it’s not their responsibility to defend glorified infidelity just because some rando on the internet they have to, in order to be an ally. Cek has their own beliefs and is not into polyamory. And doesn’t have to be to want trans people to have happier lives. Not all trans people are polyamorous either, so I guess they’re not true allies?
i'm a single girl, not a bunch of kids in a trenchcoat, but other than that this is correct
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:55 amLuminesa wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Unproven bullshit is unproven.
And yet, many people (mistakenly) think it is. Polyamory is no different in that regard. A harmless thing that a lot of entirely misinformed people condemn because of totally bullshit reasoning.
Someone can literally point to Solomon having 700 wives as a perfect example. Split a relatively-stable kingdom straight down the middle. Or all of the emperors who had multiple wives and partners at the same time, which caused entire empires to fall.
Grenartia wrote:Cekoviu wrote:Cherrypicking is when you choose a few pieces of evidence supporting your position out of a lot of pieces of evidence that generally don't. There are not a lot of pieces of evidence that generally indicate that polyamory is okay.
Its easy to make the entire concept of polyamory look bad when you focus only on cases of societies in the past which tolerated non-monogamy and had plenty of other problems, instead of examining the concept itself and only what is inherent to it.
Blaming polyamory on the fall of empires and massive amounts of violence and radicalization is as fucking pants-on-head stupid as blaming the fall of Rome on gay marriage.
On a more micro level, this is peak gatekeeping. Cek is not a part of a blob, and it’s not their responsibility to defend glorified infidelity just because some rando on the internet they have to, in order to be an ally. Cek has their own beliefs and is not into polyamory. And doesn’t have to be to want trans people to have happier lives. Not all trans people are polyamorous either, so I guess they’re not true allies?
Congratulations on missing my entire point. Maybe you should go back, and actually read it instead of skimming.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:55 amCekoviu wrote:Luminesa wrote:Someone can literally point to Solomon having 700 wives as a perfect example. Split a relatively-stable kingdom straight down the middle. Or all of the emperors who had multiple wives and partners at the same time, which caused entire empires to fall.
On a more micro level, this is peak gatekeeping. Cek is not a part of a blob, and it’s not their responsibility to defend glorified infidelity just because some rando on the internet they have to, in order to be an ally. Cek has their own beliefs and is not into polyamory. And doesn’t have to be to want trans people to have happier lives. Not all trans people are polyamorous either, so I guess they’re not true allies?
i'm a single girl, not a bunch of kids in a trenchcoat, but other than that this is correct
Lol, I apologize. I defaulted to “they”, but yeah.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:55 am
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:55 amGrenartia wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Except for the mass amount of research showing how easy it is to radicalize young dudes with nothing going for them in life, which widespread acceptance of polyamory and polygamy would create many more of.
"Mass amount of research" = some barely-disguised thinkpieces masquerading as actual science? That's news to me.
There is nothing about that that is inherent to polyamory.
>what is ISIS and extremist Islam as a whole
>what is the incel movement
>what is white nationalism
I'll give you a hint, all of these groups prey on the same group to perpetuate themselves. Young men with nothing going for them in life, this is a very well documented thing by this point.
Due to social aspirations and desires it's not gonna be the average guy who benefits from widespread acceptance of polyamory, it's gonna be the really successful guy. Which will create even more lonely and angry young dudes who start shooting places up.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:56 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:57 amNap the Magnificent wrote:US-SSR wrote:
Both having to do with men taking multiple wives, not at all applicable to the topic of polyamorus relationships. I repeat: [citation needed].
I was addressing the polygamy part in GVH's post, which I thought was obvious because a four year old could tell that was the point I was addressing by me saying "Polygamy is bad".
Which amounts to saying keeping women and gay men suppressed by allowing men to take multiple female partners but no other species of polyamourous relationship is damaging to society. I think we can stipulate that this is so. But it's no evidence that polygamy, polyandery or polyamorous relationships in general are per se damaging to any society.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:57 amWashington Resistance Army wrote:Grenartia wrote:
"Mass amount of research" = some barely-disguised thinkpieces masquerading as actual science? That's news to me.
There is nothing about that that is inherent to polyamory.
>what is ISIS and extremist Islam as a whole
>what is the incel movement
>what is white nationalism
I'll give you a hint, all of these groups prey on the same group to perpetuate themselves. Young men with nothing going for them in life, this is a very well documented thing by this point.
Due to social aspirations and desires it's not gonna be the average guy who benefits from widespread acceptance of polyamory, it's gonna be the really successful guy. Which will create even more lonely and angry young dudes who start shooting places up.
I do find "they have all the women" to be a weak argument to be against polyamory.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:57 amCelritannia wrote:Galloism wrote:You mean except the studies linked earlier, yes?
I know you want to keep stating that polygamy is polyamory without paper work, but polyamory is not always the same.
And thus polygamy has more of a structure where one or a few people control others, which is not always the case with polyamory.
Those studies are therefore not focusing on polyamory.
Polygamy has multiple structures that are not always the same. Structures you described have existed.
Here’s what you are doing. Let’s say I want to engage in a practice of schtlicking. That’s my new word. It’s where when people have a disagreement, one can challenge the other to a schtlick. That’s where you back up back to back, walk at least 25 yards, and turn and shoot. One person wins and the other is dead.
And then, when you point out dueling had lots of bad consequences, I say “schtlicking is not dueling. In dueling, you only had to be ten yards apart. This is totally different. “
Then your head explodes from frustration.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:57 amSure. But those biases are often a hindrance to the search for truth. This is a prime example. The author clearly went into this with a predetermined conclusion, instead of following the evidence where ever it may lead.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:57 amItalios wrote:Studies conducted in different countries have shown that polygamy can lead to co-wife jealousy, competition, and unequal distribution of household and emotional resources[17], and generate acrimony between co-wives and between the children of the different wives[18]. They have also shown that polygamy is associated with mental illness (in particular, depression and anxiety) among women and children[15,16]. Chaleby[14] has found a disproportionate number of women in polygamous marriages (mostly senior wives) among psychiatric outpatient and inpatient populations in Kuwait. A recent Turkish study found that the participants from polygamous families, especially senior wives, reported more psychological distress
...
However, husbands from polygamous families were found to be more educated than husbands from monogamous families [basically this proves that men in traditional polygamous relationships with one husband, multiple wives are high status individuals with a lot of bargaining power in a relationship]
...
Monogamous families were more satisfied from their economic state. Significant difference was found between the two familial structures regarding the women’s blood relations to their husband. More monogamous women reported less blood relations with husband compare to polygamous woman. Most of the women in polygamous families were senior wives. In addition, the majority from both familial structures do not agree with the practice of polygamy.
...
The economics of polygamy are particularly problematic. The level of Syrian economic development is very low. Even in the oil rich Persian Gulf region Al-Toniji[29] found that 75% of the participants agreed that the polygamist husband faced economic problems due to the need to pay for two houses. Nevertheless, there are demographic imperatives that occasionally encourage the practice[28]. Polygamy’s evident characteristic of competition and jealousy among co-wives is commonly observed within plural marriage communities[30-32]. This seems predictable, as co-wives are likely to have very limited private time with the lone husband they share, and thus might vie for his attention and favor. In some polygamous communities, women’s self-worthiness is linked to the number of children they bear and, therefore, having time with their husband is also critical to promote their status within the family and community[33]. Studies showed that in certain contexts, jealousy between co-wives can escalate to intolerable levels, resulting in physical injuries sustained by the women, and suicide attempts amongst the women. Families living together in crammed and overcrowded conditions, can create an environment that aggravates stress and conflict between co-wives[34]. Previous research reveals significant implications regarding children’s lower academic achievements, and men’s psychological problems, amongst polygamous marriages[20]. The practice has implications for entire familial structures, and for current and future families and communities.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782180/
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:58 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:58 amCelritannia wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
>what is ISIS and extremist Islam as a whole
>what is the incel movement
>what is white nationalism
I'll give you a hint, all of these groups prey on the same group to perpetuate themselves. Young men with nothing going for them in life, this is a very well documented thing by this point.
Due to social aspirations and desires it's not gonna be the average guy who benefits from widespread acceptance of polyamory, it's gonna be the really successful guy. Which will create even more lonely and angry young dudes who start shooting places up.
I do find "they have all the women" to be a weak argument to be against polyamory.
im cackling
an incel will be an incel, no matter what types of relationships are common.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:58 amGreater vakolicci haven wrote:Galloism wrote:In the macro sense, if broadly adopted, yes. It creates major inequities in society that monogamy helps address if your death rate (of men especially) is low. You can see its effects throughout history.
But there’s an overriding principle here. Individual rights matter, even if they collectively harm society. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to tell someone they can’t be with the multiple people they love.
I think it should be broadly discouraged, but never prohibited.
Society 'discouraging' something is how you end up with section 28-level bollocks. As long as everyone is consenting, and they are happy in the relationship, I see no reason to discourage it. After all, homosexuality could be argued to be damaging to society on a macro scale as it reduces the amount of available reproductive participants. We don't make that argument or discourage homosexuality though, because to do so would be denying people their right to sexual equality. I see this as a similar example.
There is a fairly substantial difference between discouraging or persecuting homosexual couples, and discouraging or persecuting people in "polyamorous relationships." In the former case, you are essentially excluding a segment of the population from fulfilling romantic relationships, which isn't true in the latter case.
Humans are social animals and it is reasonable for society to punish behaviours that benefit individual members of the society at the expense of the wider community. Polyamory is, for reasons that have been aptly conveyed both here and in the RWDT where this discussion began, detrimental to wider society and therefore deserves to be stigmatised. It's not like homosexuality, which is both a question of human rights/equality in a way that polyamory is not, and arguably has a beneficial or at least neutral impact on society as a whole.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:58 amGalloism wrote:Celritannia wrote:
I know you want to keep stating that polygamy is polyamory without paper work, but polyamory is not always the same.
And thus polygamy has more of a structure where one or a few people control others, which is not always the case with polyamory.
Those studies are therefore not focusing on polyamory.
Polygamy has multiple structures that are not always the same. Structures you described have existed.
Here’s what you are doing. Let’s say I want to engage in a practice of schtlicking. That’s my new word. It’s where when people have a disagreement, one can challenge the other to a schtlick. That’s where you back up back to back, walk at least 25 yards, and turn and shoot. One person wins and the other is dead.
And then, when you point out dueling had lots of bad consequences, I say “schtlicking is not dueling. In dueling, you only had to be ten yards apart. This is totally different. “
Then your head explodes from frustration.
Again, using articles that show the damages of polygamy does not determine polyamory as dangerous.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:59 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:59 amPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 11:59 amI don't like the idea of it, nor would I ever engage in that sort of relationship, but if people really want to, who am I to stop them?
I think the main issue I have is with actual polygamists who may or may not coerce multiple people into marriage (think the hardcore LDS sects in places like Colorado City). That can be problematic from an ethical and legal standpoint. There is a hugeline between relationships where non-monogamy is encouraged and marriages that involve people accruing a number of wives, often in an unethical and terrible fashion.
I think the main issue I have is with actual polygamists who may or may not coerce multiple people into marriage (think the hardcore LDS sects in places like Colorado City). That can be problematic from an ethical and legal standpoint. There is a hugeline between relationships where non-monogamy is encouraged and marriages that involve people accruing a number of wives, often in an unethical and terrible fashion.