NationStates

Punished UMN wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
I generally take opposition from reactionaries as a sign that I am doing something right.


The views of religion are completely meaningless to me. You might as well have told me that polyamory is bad because a rock you found on the sidewalk was etched with words that told you so.


Like what?

UMN's bit about social influence becoming concentrated was somewhat compelling, but becomes less so when you realize that the alternative is to admit that some people should be forced to marry people whom they would not choose to marry in a free society, and I react to that idea with great animosity.

My response to that is that social scarcity limits freedom necessarily, of course, but economic scarcity limits it far more, and in a society in which polyamory is legal (and not simply decriminalized), economic scarcity can become a far greater tool of coercion than social scarcity (i.e. smaller number of desirable partners) could ever be. What is more free? Settling for a partner you don't want to marry in order to not be alone, or marrying someone with a higher economic station because otherwise you could never pay off your debts? Neither are without some level of intrinsic coercion, but one is less coercive than the other.

This really seems like a false equivalency to me, though. There's nothing stopping someone from cohabitating with a wealthy married person in order to reap economic benefits right now. Why would changing the legal status matter?

Kowani wrote:Not really? Most people who would be swayed by anything like this are already going to be taken by the reactionaries anyway. Polyamory just isn’t an electoral issue. It’s not even on anyone’s radar.

Not at the moment but it has all the trappings of previous hot-button social issues. I don't really buy the argument that people who find polygamy socially pernicious were always going to side with reactionaries. Outlawing polygamy has historically been associated with modernizers like Ataturk after all.

Kowani wrote:No, they’re more likely to see it as elite decadence then anything else, since most middle class people tend to be more conservative on sexual matters, since the group most likely to call themselves middle class is more likely to be elderly. You’re extrapolating trends based on patterns that no longer hold true.

Do you have any statistics suggesting that we could expect polygamy to exclusively remain a degenerate custom of the affluent? Mind you, I don't expect all those people who become millionaires at sixty to go out and invest in mail-order brides but you might see certain professionals who make in excess of $200,000 annually marrying people with whom they would have cheated in the past. That's over 5% of the population, more than enough to replicate the social dysfunctions we see in countries where polygamy still occurs.

Kowani wrote:The generation most likely to accept polyamory is substantially younger, egalitarian, and just generally more socially liberal then you seem to think it is.

I don't think having multiple partners lends itself to an egalitarian or stable society. The very nature of polygamous marriage as an institution is almost always going to exaggerate existing advantages in romantic, sexual, social, and economic capital. And social liberalism doesn't guarantee equality by any means.

Kowani wrote:You seem to think reactionaries are motivated by polyamory. They’re not. It can be a motivator, but it’s in no way their driving force or their primary object of repression.

It gives them a hot-button cultural issue where they're clearly in the right in the event that supporting polygamy becomes a popular progressive position. Never mind how lazy "muh freedom" is as an argument.

Fahran wrote:Never mind how lazy "muh freedom" is as an argument.

For a great number of reasons, this is not a lazy argument.

Fun fact, that slippery slope argument works both ways.

Cisairse wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:My response to that is that social scarcity limits freedom necessarily, of course, but economic scarcity limits it far more, and in a society in which polyamory is legal (and not simply decriminalized), economic scarcity can become a far greater tool of coercion than social scarcity (i.e. smaller number of desirable partners) could ever be. What is more free? Settling for a partner you don't want to marry in order to not be alone, or marrying someone with a higher economic station because otherwise you could never pay off your debts? Neither are without some level of intrinsic coercion, but one is less coercive than the other.

This really seems like a false equivalency to me, though. There's nothing stopping someone from cohabitating with a wealthy married person in order to reap economic benefits right now. Why would changing the legal status matter?

There may not be legal penalties for it but there are social sanctions for doing so. Regardless, just because exploitation exists doesn't mean it should be codified into the law.

Cisairse wrote:This really seems like a false equivalency to me, though. There's nothing stopping someone from cohabitating with a wealthy married person in order to reap economic benefits right now. Why would changing the legal status matter?

Normalization and institutionalization. At the moment, such arrangements are usually subject to some degree of social censure because we view it as icky and exploitative, which prevents it from becoming a more mainstream cultural practice. You're asking us to give social approval to this practice and then inviting us to hope that it remains confined to the margins.

Also, the only way to have a completely free society would be to eliminate both economic and social scarcity, which is of course not possible. You could theoretically increase economic power to the point that scarcity is irrelevant, but social scarcity is dependent on many factors which prosperity does not eliminate or even reduce.

Fahran wrote:

Cisairse wrote:This really seems like a false equivalency to me, though. There's nothing stopping someone from cohabitating with a wealthy married person in order to reap economic benefits right now. Why would changing the legal status matter?

Normalization and institutionalization. At the moment, such arrangements are usually subject to some degree of social censure because we view it as icky and exploitative, which prevents it from becoming a more mainstream cultural practice. You're asking us to give social approval to this practice and then inviting us to hope that it remains confined to the margins.

The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

Cisairse wrote:I generally take opposition from reactionaries as a sign that I am doing something right.

Oddly enough, your position on this issue has historically been the reactionary one.

Cisairse wrote:The views of religion are completely meaningless to me. You might as well have told me that polyamory is bad because a rock you found on the sidewalk was etched with words that told you so.

I was more addressing the religious arguments that have cropped up. We have presented plenty of secular arguments as well.

Cisairse wrote:Like what?

UMN's bit about social influence becoming concentrated was somewhat compelling, but becomes less so when you realize that the alternative is to admit that some people should be forced to marry people whom they would not choose to marry in a free society, and I react to that idea with great animosity.

UMN's argument presents a beginning point but that ultimately leads to the argument Ceko made earlier about social instability, violence, and criminality becoming more of an issue. There hasn't really been a firm rebuttal of the empirical evidence regarding polygamy. Gren attempted to argue that bride prices were the issue but I pointed out that this was merely one form of social control and gatekeeping when it came to marriage. UMN's argument provides us with a different mechanism that can produce the same social effects.

Cisairse wrote:

Fahran wrote:Normalization and institutionalization. At the moment, such arrangements are usually subject to some degree of social censure because we view it as icky and exploitative, which prevents it from becoming a more mainstream cultural practice. You're asking us to give social approval to this practice and then inviting us to hope that it remains confined to the margins.

The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

There's a difference between "finding wealthy people to leech off of" and being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable.

Cisairse wrote:

Fahran wrote:Normalization and institutionalization. At the moment, such arrangements are usually subject to some degree of social censure because we view it as icky and exploitative, which prevents it from becoming a more mainstream cultural practice. You're asking us to give social approval to this practice and then inviting us to hope that it remains confined to the margins.

The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

Having sex with rich people for handouts absolutely sounds like illegal prostitution.

Cisairse wrote:The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

Sugar babies and sugar daddies (mommas?) aren't afforded any government acknowledgement, legal rights, or social prestige. Most people view them as somewhat degenerate and decadent, a mere step up from prostitution. I see no compelling reason to change that.

Punished UMN wrote:There's a difference between "finding wealthy people to leech off of" and being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable.

^ This as well. The power dynamics in these relationships are profoundly unequal and exploitative.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

What's there to "warn" about? You talk as though this is a bad thing, which it's not.

Necroghastia wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

What's there to "warn" about? You talk as though this is a bad thing, which it's not.

Polygamy and incest are very much bad and usually exploitative things.

Diopolis wrote:

Cisairse wrote:The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

Having sex with rich people for handouts absolutely sounds like illegal prostitution.

hmm, that's actually an interesting point

Fahran wrote:

Cisairse wrote:The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

Sugar babies and sugar daddies (mommas?) aren't afforded any government acknowledgement, legal rights, or social prestige. Most people view them as somewhat degenerate and decadent, a mere step up from prostitution. I see no compelling reason to change that.

I wouldn't use that language but yes, there's a social difference in the reaction to the relationship between a wealthy man and his mistress vis a vis a powerful man and his concubine.

Punished UMN wrote:

Cisairse wrote:The idea that people finding wealthy people to leech off of informally isn't "mainstream cultural practice" is kinda funny, because it absolutely is.

There's a difference between "finding wealthy people to leech off of" and being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable.

Wait, how is finding a wealthy person to leech off of because you're economically vulnerable not "being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable?"

Fahran wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:What's there to "warn" about? You talk as though this is a bad thing, which it's not.

Polygamy and incest are very much bad things.

I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

Cisairse wrote:Wait, how is finding a wealthy person to leech off of because you're economically vulnerable not "being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable?"

The language seems to shame the person who lacks power, social capital, and wealth rather than the person who is exploiting that.

Fahran wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Wait, how is finding a wealthy person to leech off of because you're economically vulnerable not "being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable?"

The language seems to shame the person who lacks power, social capital, and wealth rather than the person who is exploiting that.

…and?

Necroghastia wrote:I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

Read the articles that were posted then.

Cisairse wrote:…and?

You're arguing that there's nothing wrong with these arrangements ostensibly. But then you describe a poor person as "leeching" off the wealthy person, which implies some level of disgust at the behavior. It makes it sound like the poor person has more agency whereas UMN's description puts more of an onus on the person with the power in the relationship in question.

Cisairse wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:There's a difference between "finding wealthy people to leech off of" and being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable.

Wait, how is finding a wealthy person to leech off of because you're economically vulnerable not "being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable?"

Let me provide a hypothetical situation:

Person A is a college student with student loan debt. To cover this, she seeks out a relationship with a wealthier older man who can provide for her.
Person B is a homeless woman who is approached by a wealthier older man with promises of a place to live if she provides him with sexual intercourse.

While their motivations are the same, Person B is ultimately being coerced actively while Person A is providing some voluntarism to her coercion.

Fahran wrote:

Cisairse wrote:…and?

You're arguing that there's nothing wrong with these arrangements ostensibly. But then you describe a poor person as "leeching" off the wealthy person, which implies some level of disgust at the behavior. It makes it sound like the poor person has more agency whereas UMN's description puts more of an onus on the person with the power in the relationship in question.

You're misinterpreting my post completely, then.

But even if you weren't, I fail to see how linguistic differences in description translate to actual real-world differences in what's being described.

Punished UMN wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Wait, how is finding a wealthy person to leech off of because you're economically vulnerable not "being coerced into a relationship because you are economically vulnerable?"

Let me provide a hypothetical situation:

Person A is a college student with student loan debt. To cover this, she seeks out a relationship with a wealthier older man who can provide for her.
Person B is a homeless woman who is approached by a wealthier older man with promises of a place to live if she provides him with sexual intercourse.

While their motivations are the same, Person B is ultimately being coerced actively while Person A is providing some voluntarism to her coercion.

And yet, morally, these two scenarios are exactly the same.

Unless you're going to argue that the act of persuasion is what makes it coercive, and not the actual situation itself, in which case I fall back to my previous opinion that this does not relate to polyamory any moreso than it does to what currently happens in the real world.

Cisairse wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Let me provide a hypothetical situation:

Person A is a college student with student loan debt. To cover this, she seeks out a relationship with a wealthier older man who can provide for her.
Person B is a homeless woman who is approached by a wealthier older man with promises of a place to live if she provides him with sexual intercourse.

While their motivations are the same, Person B is ultimately being coerced actively while Person A is providing some voluntarism to her coercion.

And yet, morally, these two scenarios are exactly the same.

Unless you're going to argue that the act of persuasion is what makes it coercive, and not the actual situation itself, in which case I fall back to my previous opinion that this does not relate to polyamory any moreso than it does to what currently happens in the real world.

If, to you, those situations are morally the exact same, then you have a great deal of moral myopia. Person A is using agency, Person B is unable to resist the agency of another.