Why do you even care about it? There's literally no reason to worry about it.
Advertisement
by Grenartia » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:17 pm
by Diopolis » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:24 pm
by Grenartia » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:36 pm
that we don't know under what conditions poly succeeds
but that it has the potential to go very wrong,
and that figuring out custody issues for poly relationships promises to be a cluster isn't enough of a reason?
by Fahran » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:51 pm
Grenartia wrote:Do you have any hard evidence that its currently the most prevalent?
"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."
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.
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.
Grenartia wrote:I won't guess as to which of those the author(s) of the articles in question are guilty of.
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.
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).
by Fahran » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:55 pm
Diopolis wrote:Can anyone point to significant numbers of polyamorists that have above replacement fertility?
by Diopolis » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:05 pm
by Fahran » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:52 pm
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.
by South Odreria 2 » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:09 pm
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:05 am
by Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:12 am
Cisairse wrote:Fahran wrote:In all honesty, the position is no less valid than the liberal position that we should always strive to prioritize personal freedom. The distinction is that one argument is religious while the other is ideological - representing a secular theology.
I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.
by Servilis » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:15 am
Loben The 2nd wrote:i advocate for mass investigations on the entire city council to see who has the most child sized skeletons in their closet.
by Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:17 am
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:46 am
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. 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.
by Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:49 am
Cisairse wrote:Punished UMN wrote:Live and let live is a slogan for people too afraid to have positions. 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.
We're not talking about apoliticism, we're talking about polyamory.
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:51 am
Punished UMN wrote:Cisairse wrote:We're not talking about apoliticism, we're talking about polyamory.
I repeat: the personal is political and the political is personal. Literally every action you take in interacting with other people is political and every political action you take is personal. Politics is not some magical sphere that isn't affected by social constructivism.
by Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:52 am
Cisairse wrote:Punished UMN wrote:I repeat: the personal is political and the political is personal. Literally every action you take in interacting with other people is political and every political action you take is personal. Politics is not some magical sphere that isn't affected by social constructivism.
I never disagreed with that & have no clue how it is relevant to this discussion
by Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:04 am
by Proctopeo » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:35 am
Punished UMN wrote:3) Polyamory could undermine that because its an unknown variable that could disrupt this balance (especially true given that patriarchy still exists and so likely polyamory will simply reduce itself to exploitative polygamy)
by The Emerald Legion » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:46 am
Grenartia wrote:Diopolis wrote:That making more people is the whole point of human sexuality,
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.that we don't know under what conditions poly succeeds
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.but that it has the potential to go very wrong,
Just like any relationship ever. Geez, man, that's the 2nd lamest argument against it ever.and that figuring out custody issues for poly relationships promises to be a cluster isn't enough of a reason?
There's no reason they need to be any worse than for mono relationships. Which are a clusterfuck.
by Cekoviu » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:03 am
Proctopeo wrote:Punished UMN wrote:3) Polyamory could undermine that because its an unknown variable that could disrupt this balance (especially true given that patriarchy still exists and so likely polyamory will simply reduce itself to exploitative polygamy)
I don't, however, see what the boogeyman has to do with this.
by Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:13 am
by Diopolis » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:17 am
Punished UMN wrote:Proctopeo wrote:you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen
This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.
by Cekoviu » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:19 am
Diopolis wrote:Punished UMN wrote:This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.
I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Bagong Timog Mindanao, Big Eyed Animation, Corrian, Dazchan, Emotional Support Crocodile, Senkaku
Advertisement