Mating as a group activity instead of a pair bonding one?

[Land of The Furries]

Hahahahaha...yeah man. Totally easier to get a sexual partner than it is to pull up some porn. Where do you get this stuff?

In one's teen years, around dozens of prospective partners of the opposite sex? Who knows?

For me the point was moot even before I was fully aware of the severity of the risks, what with me at the time having wanted my crushes and only my crushes. But that has nothing to do with what everyone else was doing.

You're conflating a lot of things. Also, 'abstanense only' really doesn't have the wide ranging appeal you're making it out to be.

Then why does the law as it is currently written drag him out of school and into poverty with her if she keeps the baby after the condom broke, even if she said before sex that she wouldn't?

Surely if people saw condom use as relevant, they would write some leniency into the law for guys whose condoms broke. Such as, I dunno, having the state pick up the tab until he's of means or something...

What really seems to be happening is you're taking a lot of things personally. Don't do that. "People" say a lot of shit. You don't have anything to prove to them.

I am using it to triangulate the true nature of the human mind, as opposed to the self-reporting "survey" methodologies psychologists and sociologists rely on.

The alternative to taking things personally would be to ignore valuable clues to human nature.

Well, except the bulk of your posts.

Assertions =/= evidence.

See: The rest of your posts.

See above.

Submitted for your approval: You projecting your own shit on others by not being able to see past your own boner.

Not even remotely an accurate characterization of what I was saying.

I pointed out since the OP itself that my primary reasoning about the strength of the male sex drive was about the risks they take in their teen years.

Since then, my secondary reasoning for this narrative was who its detractors were.

Neither of these were about projecting. If anything, I see myself and other forum users alike as less horny than everyone else, because whether rightly or wrongly, society associates other activities with a higher chance of ending in getting laid.

At worst, you're twisting my words. At best, you're speculating without evidence of what's "really" motivating me. Which is it?

Get back on topic bruh we're talking about polygamy vs monogamy not whatever you're going on in the quoted above.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Get back on topic bruh we're talking about polygamy vs monogamy not whatever you're going on in the quoted above.

The "secondary" reasoning referred to in the post you're quoting is what establishes its relevance.

[Land of The Furries]

Get back on topic bruh we're talking about polygamy vs monogamy not whatever you're going on in the quoted above.

The "secondary" reasoning referred to in the post you're quoting is what establishes its relevance.

I obviously need more drugs to understand what fuck your going on about cuz you buddy are going on some rant that clearly looks like you're going in 20 million different directions here.

[Cannot think of a name]

Hahahahaha...yeah man. Totally easier to get a sexual partner than it is to pull up some porn. Where do you get this stuff?

In one's teen years, around dozens of prospective partners of the opposite sex? Who knows?

You don't strike me as someone who was pullin' the honeys in high school. Are you getting this from TV and movies? Let me hip you to a secret...we make that shit up.

For me the point was moot even before I was fully aware of the severity of the risks, what with me at the time having wanted my crushes and only my crushes. But that has nothing to do with what everyone else was doing.

Yeah, you're totally mistaking fiction for reality.

You're conflating a lot of things. Also, 'abstanense only' really doesn't have the wide ranging appeal you're making it out to be.

Then why does the law as it is currently written drag him out of school and into poverty with her if she keeps the baby after the condom broke, even if she said before sex that she wouldn't?

A lot of complex reasons, but mostly because there's a living breathing human being that can't even stand up in its first year of existence that requires care.

Surely if people saw condom use as relevant, they would write some leniency into the law for guys whose condoms broke. Such as, I dunno, having the state pick up the tab until he's of means or something...

I mean, if you're arguing for a robust social safety net, I'm all for it. Has little to do with...

...honestly I have no idea what the fuck we're talking about at this point.

What really seems to be happening is you're taking a lot of things personally. Don't do that. "People" say a lot of shit. You don't have anything to prove to them.

I am using it to triangulate the true nature of the human mind,

Don't. It's not good for that and you're really bad at it.

as opposed to the self-reporting "survey" methodologies psychologists and sociologists rely on.

Your methodology is infinitely more flawed.

The alternative to taking things personally would be to ignore valuable clues to human nature.

Not really, but in this case still a preferable option.

Well, except the bulk of your posts.

Assertions =/= evidence.

I'm not 100% certain you understand either term.

See: The rest of your posts.

See above.

Submitted for your approval: You projecting your own shit on others by not being able to see past your own boner.

Not even remotely an accurate characterization of what I was saying.

I pointed out since the OP itself that my primary reasoning about the strength of the male sex drive was about the risks they take in their teen years.

Since then, my secondary reasoning for this narrative was who its detractors were.

Neither of these were about projecting.

Except they were.

If anything, I see myself and other forum users alike as less horny than everyone else, because whether rightly or wrongly, society associates other activities with a higher chance of ending in getting laid.

Do you get these things from guys in large furry top hats?

At worst, you're twisting my words. At best, you're speculating without evidence of what's "really" motivating me. Which is it?

I can only work with what you provide. If you don't like how it's landing, do better.

[Land of The Furries]

In one's teen years, around dozens of prospective partners of the opposite sex? Who knows?

You don't strike me as someone who was pullin' the honeys in high school. Are you getting this from TV and movies? Let me hip you to a secret...we make that shit up.

For me the point was moot even before I was fully aware of the severity of the risks, what with me at the time having wanted my crushes and only my crushes. But that has nothing to do with what everyone else was doing.

Yeah, you're totally mistaking fiction for reality.

Then why does the law as it is currently written drag him out of school and into poverty with her if she keeps the baby after the condom broke, even if she said before sex that she wouldn't?

A lot of complex reasons, but mostly because there's a living breathing human being that can't even stand up in its first year of existence that requires care.

Surely if people saw condom use as relevant, they would write some leniency into the law for guys whose condoms broke. Such as, I dunno, having the state pick up the tab until he's of means or something...

I mean, if you're arguing for a robust social safety net, I'm all for it. Has little to do with...

...honestly I have no idea what the fuck we're talking about at this point.

I am using it to triangulate the true nature of the human mind,

Don't. It's not good for that and you're really bad at it.

as opposed to the self-reporting "survey" methodologies psychologists and sociologists rely on.

Your methodology is infinitely more flawed.

The alternative to taking things personally would be to ignore valuable clues to human nature.

Not really, but in this case still a preferable option.

Assertions =/= evidence.

I'm not 100% certain you understand either term.

See: The rest of your posts.

See above.

Not even remotely an accurate characterization of what I was saying.

I pointed out since the OP itself that my primary reasoning about the strength of the male sex drive was about the risks they take in their teen years.

Since then, my secondary reasoning for this narrative was who its detractors were.

Neither of these were about projecting.

Except they were.

If anything, I see myself and other forum users alike as less horny than everyone else, because whether rightly or wrongly, society associates other activities with a higher chance of ending in getting laid.

Do you get these things from guys in large furry top hats?

At worst, you're twisting my words. At best, you're speculating without evidence of what's "really" motivating me. Which is it?

I can only work with what you provide. If you don't like how it's landing, do better.

*Passes my pipe of weed over*
Here you're gonna need this cuz I think we're gonna have to be fucking stoned if we're ever gonna understand this person.

[Page]

Points for a creative PG-13 alternative title for "let's just all have orgies."

[Land of The Furries]

Points for a creative PG-13 alternative title for "let's just all have orgies."

I can get behind that.

[Nilokeras]

I think the narrative that porn is about instant gratification gets it backwards. Actual sex, at least as early in life as some people have it, risks ruining one's life, yet people still cannot think beyond having a night of pleasure.

We really should get on the project of making terminators a reality so we can send one back to back to Geneva in 1594 and prevent this weird secular Calvinism from oozing out of the wreckage of modernity

[Land of The Furries]

I think the narrative that porn is about instant gratification gets it backwards. Actual sex, at least as early in life as some people have it, risks ruining one's life, yet people still cannot think beyond having a night of pleasure.

We really should get on the project of making terminators a reality so we can send one back to back to Geneva in 1594 and prevent this weird secular Calvinism from oozing out of the wreckage of modernity

That's not what this topic is about but ok,...
I don't think you really want to do that plus you can't change something that is set in stone.

[A m e n r i a]

Still, what does American laws have to do with the topic?

Nothing really I was simply pointing out that polygamy marriage does happen here in the US. I guess Floofy wanted to clarify that we have no such laws that makes it legal. But regardless of what we have here in America legally, ppl still have multiple spouses here and the laws obviously don't stop them.

Well, if you want to have multiple wives, but your country doesn't allow it, you can always move and get married somewhere else. It's your God-given right, after all. Just make sure you the insane amount of wealth needed. One wife and child are expensive already.

[Risottia]

The average male's sex drive is so intense, so extremely overwhelming against all capacity for rational thought

The amount of misandrism in this sentence is just almost unbelievable.

[Techocracy101010]

Nothing really I was simply pointing out that polygamy marriage does happen here in the US. I guess Floofy wanted to clarify that we have no such laws that makes it legal. But regardless of what we have here in America legally, ppl still have multiple spouses here and the laws obviously don't stop them.

Well, if you want to have multiple wives, but your country doesn't allow it, you can always move and get married somewhere else. It's your God-given right, after all. Just make sure you the insane amount of wealth needed. One wife and child are expensive already.

This generally increases male competition and thusly violence note areas particularly islamic areas in the middle east have high rates of violence. Biggest predictors for involvement in violence, single male , unmarried, no kids, no stable economics and no community im not really sure you want to make conditions worse then they already are. Same was also present in early colonies where high rates of male to female 4 to 1 existed. When you swing it too far out it causes instability

[Floofybit]

Still, what does American laws have to do with the topic?

Nothing really I was simply pointing out that polygamy marriage does happen here in the US. I guess Floofy wanted to clarify that we have no such laws that makes it legal. But regardless of what we have here in America legally, ppl still have multiple spouses here and the laws obviously don't stop them.

Nope. You said it still happens in very highly concentrated LDS communities, but I was saying that this was a poor stereotype, as polygamy is banned in the church. I've lived in many highly concentrated LDS communities and not a single one has had someone who happened to practice polygamy.

[Land of The Furries]

Nothing really I was simply pointing out that polygamy marriage does happen here in the US. I guess Floofy wanted to clarify that we have no such laws that makes it legal. But regardless of what we have here in America legally, ppl still have multiple spouses here and the laws obviously don't stop them.

Well, if you want to have multiple wives, but your country doesn't allow it, you can always move and get married somewhere else. It's your God-given right, after all. Just make sure you the insane amount of wealth needed. One wife and child are expensive already.

I wasn't meaning myself in that but I have heard of it being done here in the US especially in the Mormon communities here.

[Land of The Furries]

Nothing really I was simply pointing out that polygamy marriage does happen here in the US. I guess Floofy wanted to clarify that we have no such laws that makes it legal. But regardless of what we have here in America legally, ppl still have multiple spouses here and the laws obviously don't stop them.

Nope. You said it still happens in very highly concentrated LDS communities, but I was saying that this was a poor stereotype, as polygamy is banned in the church. I've lived in many highly concentrated LDS communities and not a single one has had someone who happened to practice polygamy.

I wasn't trying to go off of stereotype. I was going off of what has happened here in the past and most of the time it usually is a Mormon. Now as far as the reports of John Doe having multiple wives, 1 in multiple states and have committed a crime? That is still unclear that he is a Mormon or not cuz they don't go into details on it when you watch Dateline, you just can only assume that he is and thus stereotyping him and speculating that he is which unfortunately does happen even though it shouldn't.

[Floofybit]

Nope. You said it still happens in very highly concentrated LDS communities, but I was saying that this was a poor stereotype, as polygamy is banned in the church. I've lived in many highly concentrated LDS communities and not a single one has had someone who happened to practice polygamy.

I wasn't trying to go off of stereotype. I was going off of what has happened here in the past and most of the time it usually is a Mormon. Now as far as the reports of John Doe having multiple wives, 1 in multiple states and have committed a crime? That is still unclear that he is a Mormon or not cuz they don't go into details on it when you watch Dateline, you just can only assume that he is and thus stereotyping him and speculating that he is which unfortunately does happen even though it shouldn't.

Yeah. But still, that official deceleration was signed in the 1800s. It's been nearly 200 years. There's no reason to stereotype it, even if you aren't. And still, I feel like someone that breaks the law of a group with no remorse, shouldn't be seen as a member of that group. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should not be the example of polygamy. It's outlawed in the church.. Try finding another example.

[Techocracy101010]

I think we can all agree for socital health 1 person to 1 person is best

[PhilTech]

I think we can all agree for socital health 1 person to 1 person is best

How about the child? hmmmm? (assuming they have or planning to have one)

It doesn't take a bunch of delusional philosophers to answer why a majority prefers a monogamous relationship. With some common sense, these human parents want the best for their child by giving them a stable environment, offering and teaching them all the skills at their disposal to be "smarter". It what separates us from these bonobos..."animals".

[Juristonia]

I think we can all agree for socital health 1 person to 1 person is best

No, we can't.

[Land of The Furries]

I wasn't trying to go off of stereotype. I was going off of what has happened here in the past and most of the time it usually is a Mormon. Now as far as the reports of John Doe having multiple wives, 1 in multiple states and have committed a crime? That is still unclear that he is a Mormon or not cuz they don't go into details on it when you watch Dateline, you just can only assume that he is and thus stereotyping him and speculating that he is which unfortunately does happen even though it shouldn't.

Yeah. But still, that official deceleration was signed in the 1800s. It's been nearly 200 years. There's no reason to stereotype it, even if you aren't. And still, I feel like someone that breaks the law of a group with no remorse, shouldn't be seen as a member of that group. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should not be the example of polygamy. It's outlawed in the church.. Try finding another example.

Ok please forgive my wording on that I do try to make things seem like it's not but sometimes that's not how it comes out. As for a better example I guess would be the reality show Sister Wives and honestly I don't think even that might work but I guess it'll have to do for now.

[Alternate Garza]

I wasn't trying to go off of stereotype. I was going off of what has happened here in the past and most of the time it usually is a Mormon. Now as far as the reports of John Doe having multiple wives, 1 in multiple states and have committed a crime? That is still unclear that he is a Mormon or not cuz they don't go into details on it when you watch Dateline, you just can only assume that he is and thus stereotyping him and speculating that he is which unfortunately does happen even though it shouldn't.

Yeah. But still, that official deceleration was signed in the 1800s. It's been nearly 200 years. There's no reason to stereotype it, even if you aren't. And still, I feel like someone that breaks the law of a group with no remorse, shouldn't be seen as a member of that group. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should not be the example of polygamy. It's outlawed in the church.. Try finding another example.

The official Woodruff Declaration, issued by then LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff, himself a sort of lukewarm polygamist by all accounts, was issued in 1890, and follow-up resolutions were required, even after statehood in 1896, due to apparent half-hearted enforcement. Of course, as it became more stringently enforced, increasing numbers of "fundamentalists" have rejected the authority of the Presidency, Quorum, etc. as "apostasy." Hence the many splinter groups that have formed.

It doesn't change the fact that in their lifetimes, the first four Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints practiced polygyny, and by several accounts, Joseph Smith also practiced polyandry by marrying women already married and sealed to other men, including high ranking church officials. It doesn't change the fact that certain of Joseph Smith's wives were underage by today's legal standards, some as young as fourteen. It doesn't change the fact that Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery both left the church in some connection to polygyny as practiced by Joseph Smith.

Now, I personally don't mind at all if consenting adults (key words here...consenting....adults) choose to marry in a group setting (Oneida Group was an example of a voluntary group marriage co-operative situation) or marry or live together polyamorously or polygamously. That's their own damn business. I can see the appeal, and not just in a sexual sense. There are practical economic benefits to pooling resources, including time, money, energy, talents, etc. That doesn't mean that I can ignore that what Joseph Smith in particular did was often illegal and morally dubious by modern standards.

[Techocracy101010]

I think we can all agree for socital health 1 person to 1 person is best

No, we can't.

Until you solve the genetic bottle neck issues and the issues with having tons of un needed surplus men polygamy will be way more problematic then monogamy

[Alternate Garza]

No, we can't.

Until you solve the genetic bottle neck issues and the issues with having tons of un needed surplus men polygamy will be way more problematic then monogamy

There's plenty of ways of doing such things to prevent such issues. Allowing polyandry as well as polygyny to co-exist, for instance. Group or communal marriages that include plenty from both sexes. Synthetic companions. Removing taboos about homosexual conduct among young men. Making it easier to donate sperm, perhaps. Decriminalizing sex work. Just a few things that immediately come to mind.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Are you getting this from TV and movies?

You were just as sure of yourself before that I was "projecting" my own sex drive onto others. Aren't you shifting the goalposts a tad by now attributing this to TV and movies instead?

In any case, no. Plenty of movies and TV shows portray men and boys as anything but horndogs. Yet you didn't see me believing those.

The question is; is women are just as horny as men, and just as varied in what they find attractive, wouldn't you expect them to seduce men and boys of various body types, personalities, etc... in random places? Is it that women are hornier than they're made out to be or men and boys less so?

A lot of complex reasons, but mostly because there's a living breathing human being that can't even stand up in its first year of existence that requires care.

And the state paying for said care until the parents are of means could also result in that child receiving care. Yet somehow this isn't the option the voting public went for. How do you explain that?

I mean, if you're arguing for a robust social safety net, I'm all for it. Has little to do with...

...honestly I have no idea what the fuck we're talking about at this point.

The public: "We're not going to collectivize amongst society the cost of your child support bills. Not even just to a level that would prevent you from having to drop out of college and take whichever job will pay them. Not even if you wore a condom and it simply broke. You should have been abstinent."

Also the public: "[Insert whatever opinion we don't like here] must just be a product of envy at not getting laid!"

Your methodology is infinitely more flawed.

Than expecting respondents to mean what they say?

No one has ever truly believed in taking respondents at their word. If they did, polls where men claim prefer confident plus sized women, over insecure supermodels, would have been the end of it. They only invoke polls when the polls confirm whatever biases they want confirmed.

Not really, but in this case still a preferable option.

Are you implying ignorance is bliss?

I can only work with what you provide. If you don't like how it's landing, do better.

Nonsense. If you happen to be wrong about what someone is saying, that's a poor reflection on your judgment, not mine.

[Juristonia]

No, we can't.

Until you solve the genetic bottle neck issues and the issues with having tons of un needed surplus men polygamy will be way more problematic then monogamy

Things have issues, as all things do.
However, you didn't say things have issues. You said "I think we can all agree", which, quite evidently, we can not.
If everyone did agree, this topic of conversation wouldn't exist to begin with.