Fahran wrote:Grenartia wrote:Do you have any hard evidence that its currently the most prevalent?
Yes. There's a pretty broad anthropological consensus on this.
Source"Anthropologically, polygamy is defined as marriage between one person and two or more spouses simultaneously. It exists in two main forms: polygyny, where one man is married to several women, and polyandry, where one woman is married to several men. A third form, group marriage between several men and women, is rare; same‐sex polygamy is very rare. Polygyny is the most common form, including de facto forms, where a person is formally monogamous but socially polygamous, maintaining additional relationships. Contemporary anthropologists explore polygamous kinship and gender relations and the law and politics of polygamy. Focal points include managing love, emotions, and sexuality in polygamy and polygamy's impact on women's and children's health and rights. Polygamy becomes political when minorities such as fundamentalist Mormons claim the practice as a religious or cultural right in majority monogamous societies."
Paywalled source, and I'm not seeing any hard numbers anywhere.
Grenartia wrote:The poly community has a term for men who exclusively seek multiple women for a relationship. Its called unicorn hunting, and isn't looked very highly upon. Which isn't to say that NHA's assertion that such arrangements are outright discriminated against by the rest of the community is entirely accurate.
I feel like what you refer to as the poly community is a largely insular and marginal group within the broader community of people who practice polyamory, especially given that it is a socially accepted practice in many regions, and within the West, where monogamy has become the more conventional social model. You have to exclude fundamentalist Mormons, all those businessmen who go on "work trips", and certain immigrant communities as well since they practice polygyny almost exclusively to my knowledge.
Those 'businessmen who go on "work trips"' are cheaters, not poly. The difference is pretty clear.
Grenartia wrote:The problem with the article is that it presumes a different set of social values than are widely accepted in current society. If you're drawing conclusions about a phenomenon for a society that values egalitarianism and gender equality, but are using cherrypicked datapoints from societies which decidedly never truly valued egalitarianism and gender equality in the first place, then you are at best making an honest, though fundamentally obvious, mistake, and at worst, outright lying.
Our society, despite a lot of the rhetoric and pretenses, isn't egalitarian or liberated from gender norms or the material conditions that support them.
I won't argue otherwise. But I will argue that our society DOES value those things, even if the current implementation is far from perfect.
Even serial monogamy has led to more mild occurrences of the phenomena we could expect from widespread polyamory. Ostro presented a decent explanation for why this argument largely falls flat earlier.
Ostro is on my ignore list, so...
Some of it is biological. Some of it is cultural and social. Polyamory may work fine among your small, insular, and marginal community, a community largely populated by progressive, college-educated people who don't really care too much about social institutions. Your norms and concerns aren't the same as those that predominate in the rest of society and, even if they were, I'd rather impose my preferred model on society than yours.
Your 'preferred model' is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Grenartia wrote:I won't guess as to which of those the author(s) of the articles in question are guilty of.
Perhaps you could present data that provides a compelling counter-narrative? We do have examples of societies where polygyny isn't the most common sort of polygamy practiced. Demonstrate that we'd get something akin to what Celt insisted would happen.
See, what you've done here is you've cheekily tried to shift the burden of proof. Its not
my job to disprove your claim that polyamory is bad. Its YOUR job to prove it. And you, quite frankly, have not really done so (despite trying).
Grenartia wrote:Which is fundamentally saying that men aren't at all responsible for when they rape, kidnap, murder, assault, rob, and commit fraud, and that they require women to avoid doing them (which is somehow sexist against both women and men, and is fundamentally freudian in its flawed conclusion, AND perpetuates rape culture). Likewise, I have to question if they truly accounted for the fact that all of these crimes were more common even in monogamous societies of the past, and are more common in unstable societies of the present. Like, this is truly a prime example of fractal wrong-ness.
Pointing out that particular social institutions and models can produce social dysfunctions isn't the same as absolving people of moral responsibility.
That's absolutely what's going on here. You're claiming "poly bad" because "lonely men act badly", and the IMPLICIT claim is that to prevent bad actions, lonely men need to have women.
Poor people don't cease to be moral agents simply because a society that allows widespread poverty without a social safety net makes criminality, instability, and violence more common.
Sure, though that does mean a society with those problems and widespread poverty should have a healthy social safety net. And that's the fundamental problem with the 'poly bad because lonely men are terrorists' argument, because lonely men exist regardless of polyamory, and thus, truly solving the 'problem' of lonely men requires gutting women's agency and assigning them to lonely men.
Accepting your reasoning for 'poly bad' inherently requires state-assigned girlfriends and functionally chattel slavery for women. Something which the incel community will jump for joy over, but hardly anyone else. I didn't think I'd have to articulate that to a woman.
You're arguing like a neocon here. We can both punish rapists and murderers and structure our society in such a way that people are less disposed to become rapists and murderers.
And we can have reasonable legal benefits for polyamory without lonely men becoming rapists and murderers.
Grenartia wrote:Sounds like the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In fact, hell, this alone proves the conclusion doesn't apply to Western societies at large, because Western societies do not have brideprices. In fact, it could equally be argued that the existence of the brideprice itself is the cause of these things, not whether or not the society which has it allows polygyny or not. Of course, that argument would itself require conceding that men only become involved in bad behavior when sexually frustrated with no outlet, and that they must have access to a woman to be satiated (which is extremely rapey and blatantly incorrect to say). I refuse to concede that argument (an argument which is DIRECTLY implied by both articles).
A bride price is one mechanism that can block men out of marriage but it isn't the only one. The issue is that, even in our society, polygamy is going to exacerbate socioeconomic
Abolish capitalism, then.
and romantic disparities.
Full gender equality and teach people to not be shitty people that nobody wants to be romantically involved with.
I think it's a given that men who are unable to get married and unable to start families are going to have much less of a reason to give a damn about social order than men who do have those opportunities.
I think you're fearmongering.
Diopolis wrote:Fahran wrote:The Saudis. Polygyny can actually result in a higher fertility rate. Polyandry, on the other hand, tends to depress the fertility rate of a population. For obvious reasons.
I was attempting to use polyamory to here mean the liberal progressive term where it's totally, for realsies, completely different from anytime anyone ever tried this before.
In other words to get an example that we can both(me and gren) agree is polyamory and one which isn't .9 TFR dog moms.
lolwat
Fahran wrote:Grenartia wrote:With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.
Population contraction can have a good many deleterious consequences. Given the United States may have a fertility rate as low as 1.77 births per woman - the replacement rate is around 2.1 births per woman - encouraging social models that depress the fertility rate even further could lead to population contraction and the deleterious consequences in question at a faster rate.
The fundamental causes of the lower birthrate are due to socioeconomic inequalities caused by capitalism. I.E., people literally cannot afford to have children. There's also quality of life issues (who
wants to take care of a whiny, screaming, illogical shit factory and mess maker for nearly 2 decades, even if you could afford it?), and the aforementioned issues regarding overpopulation.
South Odreria 2 wrote:lmao are people still doing malthusian economics
Malthus was right for the wrong reasons.Nobody can dispute that the Earth's resources are finite, and that unless humanity colonizes other planets, there will come a point where humanity's need for resources will outpace the Earth's ability to provide them, and that if preserving the environment is also a concern, that limit is even lower. Those are simple, self-evident facts. In several areas, we have crossed, or are in danger of crossing, the Earth's ability to provide resources while preserving the environment. Climate change is just the most obvious impact.
Punished UMN wrote:Cisairse wrote:I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.
Live and let live is a slogan for people too afraid to have positions.
[citation needed]
The personal is political, all social interactions have social ramifications. Everything one person does ultimately affects all of us, so we have a vested interest in regulating individual actions.
And yet, there must be a line. If my actions as an individual are regulated so tightly that 1984 looks like a libertarian paradise, what's even the point in living? I might as well kill myself in such a dystopian hellhole.
The Emerald Legion wrote:Grenartia wrote:With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.
We in the poly community arguably do. Open and honest communication, not being jealous, and mutual respect for your partners. Its not exactly a big fucking secret, and they're the same things that lead to success in mono relationships.
Just like any relationship ever. Geez, man, that's the 2nd lamest argument against it ever.
There's no reason they need to be any worse than for mono relationships. Which are a clusterfuck.
So you're an advocate of genocide? Because preventing people from having kids is a time tested means of wiping them out.
Nope. Saying that people should voluntarily not have more than one kid =/= using the power of the state to stop people from having kids altogether.
But nice strawman, though.
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.
By this argument, you might as well ban marriage altogether, because Man A might marry Woman B (for whom Man A is her ideal partner, who is Man C's ideal partner, forcing Man C to settle for Woman D (whose ideal partner is Man E, who is in turn married to Woman F, ad nauseum).
Fahran wrote: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.
You could just as well argue that groups of less-affluent people will band together as a polycule, loving each other, and most importantly, sharing financial burdens between themselves, preventing them all from becoming destitute.
Fahran wrote:You're asking us to give social
approval
acceptance to this practice and then inviting us to hope
realize that it remains confined to the margins.
has no serious negative consequences in the grand scheme of things.Fhicks'd.
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.
And more importantly, always has been. It ain't even new.
Fahran wrote: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.
And yet, it is still the most significant economic factor in that system of social control and gatekeeping, and one of the ones that should absolutely be gotten rid of.
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.
Yes, there is a difference between sugar daddies and literal human sex trafficking.
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 and usually exploitative things.
Disgusting as it is, as long as no kids come from the relationship, and everyone involved is an informed and consenting adult, I see no reason why the state should prohibit incest.
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.
The key here, is to abolish capitalism. Then neither person A nor B will need to sleep with a rich, older man in order to obtain the basic necessities of life.
Punished UMN wrote:Individualism when taken to extremes is bad.
Likewise, collectivism when taken to extremes is bad.
Fahran wrote:Your ex wife wrote:Polyamory is for hypergamous women and womanizer men who serially cheat and have babies from like 5 different people. It's literally just glofiried gaslighting cheating and abusive relationships. No one should have more than one partner
Um, hello, based department?
Based on what? Inceldom?
Fahran wrote:The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:A lot of people have also said pedophilia and zoophilia was next to become fully mainstream and widely socially acceptable, recognized and legalized after gay marriage and acceptance, but that hasn’t happened and most likely never will happen.
Tell it to Ghislaine Maxwell and all the "minor-attracted persons" rambling about "pedosexuality."
Child molesters are still perfectly acceptable targets (and rightfully so), and nobody outside of their community accepts that.
And, as I have previously pointed out, the loopholes that have historically allowed adults to have sex with children have been closing, rather than expanding. They are still actively shunned, including by those of us who are 'social-collapse enthusiast' SJWs.
Polyamory was one of the things the neocons warned about back in the 1980s and 1990s, and, lo and behold, we have people advocating for it without even the slightest hint of shame now.
People have been doing it blatantly for years, decades, even.
To be honest, their argument is increasingly seeming like a stroke of brilliance despite the fact that I have no issue with the LGBT+ community at all. I'm just tired of people actively deconstructing and hurting the social fabric for the sake of a religious dogma.
Nobody is hurting the social fabric. Just cutting out the ugly and worn areas, and patching them with better and newer parts.
Punished UMN wrote:To avoid cluttering my post, I will simply refer to the post, but, answer me this: since patriarchy is a thing, how would polyamory not be twisted into something serve it? How would you be able to prevent such abuses of the system occurring?
Monogamy is just as prone to reinforcing the patriarchy. The key to stopping something from serving the patriarchy is to dismantle it directly, not arbitrarily label certain things as tools of it, and ban them for no real reason.
Fahran wrote:Celritannia wrote:1. And yet, Polyamory is different in the respect, Person A is married to person B, and Person C is married to person B but not person A.
Polyamory is not as straight forward as polygamy.
I'm using the anthropological and sociological definitions as presented in the peer-reviewed article I posted earlier because those are the definitions that are pertinent in discussing social dysfunctions and institutionalized sexual behaviors. As I have pointed out numerous times, with empirical evidence supporting my argument,
Define "empirical evidence". Because what I've seen has been inaccessible and/or of questionable accuracy. You didn't even provide an accessible source with hard numbers (and a detailed methodology of how those numbers were obtained). You gave one link that had everything but the abstract hidden behind a paywall, a practice which is elitist at best, and disingenuous at worst.
what you refer to as polyamory is one of the rarest forms of the practice of having multiple romantic partners, both in societies where polygamy is routinely practiced and in the West where polyamory usually takes the form of informal polygyny. Legalizing polygamy will by necessity legalize all forms of the practice, not just the super liberal, free love one that you like.
Celritannia wrote:2. Articles relating to polygamy are not the same as actual articles relating to polyamory.
A psychological think-piece on a small aberrant community's sexual and romantic practices, albeit with some excellent and irrelevant data cited in its references,
Funny, that's basically what I'd characterize the sources provide by Cek, and what I've seen from you, as.
and a Wikipedia article do not really counter two peer-reviewed sociological and anthropological studies on the broad pattern of social behaviors wherein people have multiple sexual and romantic partners. You're trying to reduce the definition in a way that excludes all the forms of polyamory that you dislike so that you can say there won't be consequences if we legitimize and normalize polyamory through polygamy. The problem is that you can't engage in discrimination against the people who are very likely to adopt the practice and who are in the majority with regard to the practice. People can consent to polygyny. In fact, more people are doing that in the West at this very moment than any other sort of polyamory. The data corroborates it. So stop being weasally with your definitions and address it.
Celritannia wrote:3. I'm not even polyamorous, so mentioning "my lifestyle" is incorrect.
My apologies. I misremembered you mentioning being polyamorous previously. My bad.
Celritannia wrote:However, linking polyamory to paedophilia is pathetic, as the former is with consenting adults, the latter is not. Retract your comment that polyamory is like paedophilia.
Absolutely not. At the moment, polyamory is linked to pedophilia.
What the ACTUAL FUCK, Fahr? I very much resent this statement. You were supposed to be the reasonable one.
In fact, the most prominent cases we have, if we disregard the extreme minority of cases and behaviors you agree to define as polyamory, are related to the government cracking down on polyamorous/polygamist groups that engaged in child marriage, often with multiple spouses. I'm not going to disrespect the struggles those girls had to experience to make people who deviate from sexual norms comfortable. They can come up with a new term for it if the historically problematic power dynamics involved with the anthropologically correct perturb definition them.
Good lord, this is no different from when the homophobic preachers used pederasty to condemn same-sex marriage.
I'll tell you the same thing I told the homophobes on here before Obergefell: We can, do, and should crack down on pedophilia without infringing on the rights of people not engaging in pedophilia.
Celritannia wrote:I have also yet to see evidence that polyamory will lead to a societal collapse.
I never said it would lead to social collapse. I said that legalizing polygamy, which is what government acknowledgement and legal protection for polyamory effectively does, will lead to the legalization of all forms of polygamy, including the most popular form in the West - polygyny. I then argued that widespread polygyny would lead to social instability, devaluation of women and lower-class men, higher occurrences of sexual assault, murder, and violence, and exaggerated social inequalities. I have sociological evidence for all of these claims.
Evidence which I have reasonably called into question.
Punished UMN wrote:Celritannia wrote:You said I should care about what people 4 doors down the street for me do.
Yes, you should. That is part of being a conscientious citizens.
People have a right to privacy, and people shouldn't be peeping Toms, or social snitches.
Washington Resistance Army wrote: The entire social liberal movement is built and relies on continually finding new things to advocate for, this can't even be argued against.
Its not "continually finding news things to advocate for", its fighting against injustices that currently exist. Child molestation will never not be an injustice, so it will continually be fought against.
Crockerland wrote:Celritannia wrote:This is no different when people were questioning gay marriage and wanted to know what was happening with their lives because it was not the norm.
Celritannia wrote:They are quite similar. People afraid with embracing or altering what the concept of love is, because that's what LGBT marriages fought for too. The inclusion of same sex love.
LGBT couples wanting to be treated exactly the same as non-LGBT couples is not the same as polyamorous people wanting special treatment.
I remember when the shoe was on the other foot, and the homophobes were the ones saying we wanted special treatment for wanting to be able to get married. Its a shame you have forgotten that in 5 short years.