Polygamy: Should it be allowed?

[xssve]

Yes, I remember you defending dog fucking pretty clearly. I don't think that's tolerant, I think that's fucked up.

Right, you feel sorry for the dogs, but the argument for tolerance is what I was drawing your attention to.

Your extensive post won't really convince me, any more than someone referencing the bible will convince me that gay is bad.

You mistake me - the stressors on monogamy are primarily economic, monogamy is natural, but it's also a specific adaptation to an agrarian economy, just as polygyny was better suited to a pastoral one, polyandry suited to the stable, collective farming economy of the Egyptians - the urban economy makes it more difficult for people to stay together, for, among other reasons, we seldom stay in one place our entire lives anymore, but go where the work is.

This is going to be more stressful on the old style, "Harem" polygamous lifestyles, it's hard enough to maintain a relationship with one person - except in cases of polyamourous households where people come and go, which often function as economic/sexual co-ops - this creates some social stability in a political economy in flux.

Historically, people have been dumbasses.

The same issue remains. Consent. People should be able to consent to what they choose in their lives.

I agree, but you are closer to advocating Christian reconstruction yourself, I think you ought to google that before you get too activist about it.

 

[Recidiva]

OK. I've calmed down, a little.

I've thought of what I have to say, I'm going to say it and that's the last time I look at this thread.

First, I'll admit I'm selfish and I'm not willing to share. If I care enough about a woman to share her life I want her for myself. I'm not going to consent to being #2 or # 3 in her life.

Second, I don't like my gender as a general principle. Sharing living space with them is not something I have any great interest in. I might like some men and even be friends with them, but I'm not going to live with them.

Third, polygamy, in my opinion, will increase the competitiveness of the mating game. As I said earlier, it means the most desirable people, those regarded as the best mates, stay on the market. Those wealthy enough and powerful enough to attract a lot of mates will do so. They'll take a share much larger than the rest of us can possibly achieve.

Some may sneer at the idea of 'can't get a mate', but I know from experience this is the case for some people. Polyamory, in my opinion, would reduce the chances of getting a mate for these people from 'Chinaman's' to 'Hell freezing over'.

That's it. I'm done.

Okay, that's a big issue. Not willing to share. Which is why I'm in a monogamous relationship right now. My husband is absolutely unwilling to share and with things the way they are socially, marriage is just the easiest way to handle it. But he was fine being in "open" relationships earlier, as long as HE was the only one who was open. He knows with me, that's not going to fly either, so we settled on monogamy. It's fine if you are aware you're a selfish bastard (his words) and can live up (or down) to that, and the agreements you make.

But is "not willing to share" inherent, absolute, or is it really part of a belief system that can be altered by not being considered first, second or third, or just being equals?

I'm a person that believes in equals. If I chose to be with different people, it's because I consider them to be unique and necessary to me in different ways.

That's what I'm proposing, partnership among equals. There's no ranking system. But there are many people, women and men, obsessed with their rank.

It's the concern for the rank, which I consider to be ego, and not the concern for the group, which I consider to be healthier, and possible, given a different mindset, that would make polygamy work for the few who DO think in terms of equality.

 

[Recidiva]

Right, you feel sorry for the dogs, but the argument for tolerance is what I was drawing your attention to.

You mistake me - the stressors on monogamy are primarily economic, monogamy is natural, but it's also a specific adaptation to an agrarian economy, just as polygyny was better suited to a pastoral one, polyandry suited to the stable, collective farming economy of the Egyptians - the urban economy makes it more difficult for people to stay together, for, among other reasons, we seldom stay in one place our entire lives anymore, but go where the work is.

This is going to be more stressful on the old style, "Harem" polygamous lifestyles, it's hard enough to maintain a relationship with one person - except in cases of polyamourous households where people come and go, which often function as economic/sexual co-ops - this creates some social stability in a political economy in flux.

I agree, but you are closer to advocating Christian reconstruction yourself, I think you ought to google that before you get too activist about it.

Let me repeat, my opinions are my own. I really don't need to Google them to get a fact check.

 

[cloudy]

OK. I've calmed down, a little.

I've thought of what I have to say, I'm going to say it and that's the last time I look at this thread.

First, I'll admit I'm selfish and I'm not willing to share. If I care enough about a woman to share her life I want her for myself. I'm not going to consent to being #2 or # 3 in her life.

Second, I don't like my gender as a general principle. Sharing living space with them is not something I have any great interest in. I might like some men and even be friends with them, but I'm not going to live with them.

Third, polygamy, in my opinion, will increase the competitiveness of the mating game. As I said earlier, it means the most desirable people, those regarded as the best mates, stay on the market. Those wealthy enough and powerful enough to attract a lot of mates will do so. They'll take a share much larger than the rest of us can possibly achieve.

Some may sneer at the idea of 'can't get a mate', but I know from experience this is the case for some people. Polyamory, in my opinion, would reduce the chances of getting a mate for these people from 'Chinaman's' to 'Hell freezing over'.

That's it. I'm done.

But, Rob, no one is saying that you, personally, have to be involved in a polyamorous relationship. I don't like sharing, either, so I don't think it would work for me, but that doesn't mean that I think other people can't make it work.

As far as the competition for other mates goes: there are already polyamorous relationships in existence. Why would legalizing them make any difference?

Competition is tough, I agree with you there, but I don't think that making polygamy legal is going to change that either way.

 

[xssve]

Okay, that's a big issue. Not willing to share. Which is why I'm in a monogamous relationship right now. My husband is absolutely unwilling to share and with things the way they are socially, marriage is just the easiest way to handle it. But he was fine being in "open" relationships earlier, as long as HE was the only one who was open. He knows with me, that's not going to fly either, so we settled on monogamy. It's fine if you are aware you're a selfish bastard (his words) and can live up (or down) to that, and the agreements you make.

But is "not willing to share" inherent, absolute, or is it really part of a belief system that can be altered by not being considered first, second or third, or just being equals?

I'm a person that believes in equals. If I chose to be with different people, it's because I consider them to be unique and necessary to me in different ways.

That's what I'm proposing, partnership among equals. There's no ranking system. But there are many people, women and men, obsessed with their rank.

It's the concern for the rank, which I consider to be ego, and not the concern for the group, which I consider to be healthier, and possible, given a different mindset, that would make polygamy work for the few who DO think in terms of equality.

Sounds nice, but the statistical probabilities of it becoming widespread are extremely remote. These sorts of imbalances typically end up being enforced through force majeure, and rapidly devolve into non-consensual patterns..

Like communism, it can work in small groups of like minded individuals, monogamy is a managable and successful adaptation, it covers most of the bases, economy, childcare, emotional support, etc., and that's why it's the basic mode.

More common divergences are serial monogamy, extended dating, loose, tribal co-operatives, etc.

 

[Recidiva]

Sounds nice, but the statistical probabilities of it becoming widespread are extremely remote. These sorts of imbalances typically end up being enforced through force majeure, and rapidly devolve into non-consensual patterns..

Like communism, it can work in small groups of like minded individuals, monogamy is a managable and successful adaptation, it covers most of the bases, economy, childcare, emotional support, etc., and that's why it's the basic mode.

More common divergences are serial monogamy, extended dating, loose, tribal co-operatives, etc.

I don't think communism can work, because that's basicaly subsidies and not allowing people to find their niche. It's shoving a round peg into a square hole more often than not, through beaurocracy.

Open marriages allow for finding a niche, with more niches possible.

Yes, it is more competitive in a way, but it also provides more opportunities.

I do not consider competition in any model to be a bad thing. It promotes adaptation, and that's good.

 

[xssve]

I'm not going to debate communism, and you've already listed all the problems with egalatarian polygamy in referencing your own situation - now I could hang with that, but the same problem: how to eat your cake and have it too in terms of stability, emotional security, etc. I don't even mind sharing, as long as I don't have to follow amicus in...

 

[Recidiva]

I'm not going to debate communism, and you've already listed all the problems with egalatarian polygamy in referencing your own situation - now I could hang with that, but the same problem: how to eat your cake and have it too in terms of stability, emotional security, etc. I don't even mind sharing, as long as I don't have to follow amicus in...

Yes, but the problems have to do with current attitudes and are not insurmountable. It just takes social adaptation.

Like getting used to not having slaves, or women voting, or gay people out of the closet.

Diversity.

People argue also that prostitution shouldn't be legal because it's inherently degrading. I don't think it is. People THINKING that it is, is the problem. But it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[xssve]

True, but that has nothing to do with the statistical probabilites of what people will do, under specific stressors.

Even the Pacific islanders, in small, realtively controlled environment had to have social controls - jealousy is a basic human emotion, selected for for reasons of mate monopolization which has benefits w/respect to childrearing, i.e., it helps assure paternity for the male, and secure resources for said progeny for the female including male aparetal involvment which increases said offsprings own breeding potential - anyway, to make it work, jealous islanders had to be mocked into chilling.

Do I win the longest sentence contest?

 

[Recidiva]

True, but that has nothing to do with the statistical probabilites of what people will do, under specific stressors.

Even the Pacific islanders, in small, realtively controlled environment had to have social controls - jealousy is a basic human emotion, selected for for reasons of mate monopolization which has benefits w/respect to childrearing, i.e., it helps assure paternity for the male, and secure resources for said progeny for the female including male aparetal involvment which increases said offsprings own breeding potential - anyway, to make it work, jealous islanders had to be mocked into chilling.

Do I win the longest sentence contest?

Divorce rates are high, yet people still continue to want to marry. Cheating is rampant. Removing the stigma from cheating is a bit like taking the stigma off alcohol after Prohibition. Eliot Ness went out for a drink. Cheating will now be classified as "auditions."

 

[xssve]

It's conjectured that under the godess religions, the women formed a coleective, raising the children communally and engaged in agriculture - men would barter meat, skins, other things they were out wandering around collecting, for sex, and these women were reputedly highy sought after as wives.

In the bible, when it refers to groves being destroyed, it's likely that these were these collectives, which were persecuted by the Hebrews as competing religions. Haridistu, the secular prostitute was tolerated in Hebrew society, Quadistu, the religious prostitute, was not.

It seems rabbi Yeshua spent a great deal of time with groups of unnattached women, and it's possible he was supported by remnants of the godess religions - converted or otherwise - the casting out of the "Seven Devils" may be a reference to the Seven levels of initiation reputedly part of certain occult godess religions.

Religious prostitution was an adaptation common in classical culture, it was a way for unnatached women to take care of themselves in an androcentric, patrimonial culture where women had low economic value.

Under Christianity thse became nunneries, which often functioned as little more than houses of prostitution.

 

[Recidiva]

It's conjectured that under the godess religions, the women formed a coleective, raising the children communally and engaged in agriculture - men would barter meat, skins, other things they were out wandering around collecting, for sex, and these women were reputedly highy sought after as wives.

In the bible, when it refers to groves being destroyed, it's likely that these were these collectives, which were persecuted by the Hebrews as competing religions. Haridistu, the secular prostitute was tolerated in Hebrew society, Quadistu, the religious prostitute, was not.

It seems rabbi Yeshua spent a great deal of time with groups of unnattached women, and it's possible he was supported by remnants of the godess religions - converted or otherwise - the casting out of the "Seven Devils" may be a reference to the Seven levels of initiation reputedly part of certain occult godess religions.

Religious prostitution was an adaptation common in classical culture, it was a way for unnatached women to take care of themselves in an androcentric, patrimonial culture where women had low economic value.

Under Christianity thse became nunneries, which often functioned as little more than houses of prostitution.

Yup, burning the Asherahs was not a kindness to the human race.

Since nuns are technically married to Jesus, it would make him a polygynist.

 

[xssve]

Divorce rates are high, yet people still continue to want to marry. Cheating is rampant. Removing the stigma from cheating is a bit like taking the stigma off alcohol after Prohibition. Eliot Ness went out for a drink. Cheating will now be classified as "auditions."

People get married because they want emotional and financial security, that isn't likely to change anytime soon, stressors or no stressors, as I say, it's a very succuessful adaptation, historically speaking, and I'm talking in millions of years most likely, there is even monogamy among the Great Apes.

There is a fairly large distinction between an open marriage and cheating on each other, if partners in a dyad are not concerned with each others emotional security first and foremost, the relationship is technically dysfunctional, and likely to lead to problems.

 

[xssve]

Yup, burning the Asherahs was not a kindness to the human race.

Since nuns are technically married to Jesus, it would make him a polygynist.

Lucky bastard, nuns are hot baby.

 

[Belegon]

But, be that as it may, we are not Catholic, nor Buddhist, nor Muslim, nor any other flavor of mysticism, but, Christian, in our foundations.

Amicus...

Ami, you do remember that Catholicism is a sect of Christianity, yes?

 

[Recidiva]

People get married because they want emotional and financial security, that isn't likely to change anytime soon, stressors or no stressors, as I say, it's a very succuessful adaptation, historically speaking, and I'm talking in millions of years most likely, there is even monogamy among the Great Apes.

There is a fairly large distinction between an open marriage and cheating on each other, if partners in a dyad are not concerned with each others emotional security first and foremost, the relationship is technically dysfunctional, and likely to lead to problems.

People also get married because they love each other, and destroy family security to do it.

 

[Belegon]

still trying to process and catch up here...

I think that an adaptation to multiple marriage dynamics could be in our future... I hope that it is. I do agree with a point that was referenced earlier about the issue of gay marriage being resolved, or at least continually addressed, being a leading edge towards this.

to me, the legal issues are a part of contractual law... and will only be resolved as cases about them come to court. So the point about there needing to already be polygamous marriages in order for precedent to be set about them seems relevant.

I see the acceptance of alternative forms of "marriage" as a part of a social evolution. I realize that saying so tends to relegate "traditional monogamy" to a status of being a less highly evolved concept... I'm not sure how to avoid that. I don't think that monogamy is a bad thing... not for everyone. I do think that I now have enough evidence to know it is a bad thing for me.

As is almost always the case, education and exposure are the things most likely to increase acceptance. Fear of the unknown and the unusual are always a part of human social interaction.

 

[Recidiva]

still trying to process and catch up here...

I think that an adaptation to multiple marriage dynamics could be in our future... I hope that it is. I do agree with a point that was referenced earlier about the issue of gay marriage being resolved, or at least continually addressed, being a leading edge towards this.

to me, the legal issues are a part of contractual law... and will only be resolved as cases about them come to court. So the point about there needing to already be polygamous marriages in order for precedent to be set about them seems relevant.

I see the acceptance of alternative forms of "marriage" as a part of a social evolution. I realize that saying so tends to relegate "traditional monogamy" to a status of being a less highly evolved concept... I'm not sure how to avoid that. I don't think that monogamy is a bad thing... not for everyone. I do think that I now have enough evidence to know it is a bad thing for me.

As is almost always the case, education and exposure are the things most likely to increase acceptance. Fear of the unknown and the unusual are always a part of human social interaction.

I don't think it's necessary to relegate monogamy or polygamy to evolved concepts.

Just tools used to suit demonstrable needs. One size does not fit all.

There's that damned equality thing again. When am I gonna cut that out?

 

[Belegon]

I don't think it's necessary to relegate monogamy or polygamy to evolved concepts.

Just tools used to suit demonstrable needs. One size does not fit all.

I definitely agree with that... it's just that it seems like acceptance of diversity in all forms is a sign of a culture "growing up".

and I know that the metaphor breaks down pretty quickly. The way that kids can so quickly adapt to a changing environment indicates that "adult" behavior is not necessarily more accepting. And that is only one example of the flaws in that metaphor.

it's the push of society towards conformity that is on my mind. and part of that is my own current situation speaking out.

 

[Recidiva]

I definitely agree with that... it's just that it seems like acceptance of diversity in all forms is a sign of a culture "growing up".

and I know that the metaphor breaks down pretty quickly. The way that kids can so quickly adapt to a changing environment indicates that "adult" behavior is not necessarily more accepting. And that is only one example of the flaws in that metaphor.

it's the push of society towards conformity that is on my mind. and part of that is my own current situation speaking out.

Yes, I think it's easier for kids to adapt to realities. There's so much weird to the word they're expected to accept, that social conditioning works both ways. They're fine at dealing with reality when presented the right way. They're also able to carry all manner of bullshit to adulthood with them because it was given to them along with the rest of the stuff they had to accept, and they never rethought it.

 

[Belegon]

They're also able to carry all manner of bullshit to adulthood with them because it was given to them along with the rest of the stuff they had to accept, and they never rethought it.

a very large part of my concerns with my own children over the next few years is related to this truth... I want them to grow up to make their own choices, not to feel that they "have" to be a certain way by the time they reach a certain age.

if I can make it easier for them then it has been for me, I will...

 

[Recidiva]

a very large part of my concerns with my own children over the next few years is related to this truth... I want them to grow up to make their own choices, not to feel that they "have" to be a certain way by the time they reach a certain age.

if I can make it easier for them then it has been for me, I will...

Yes, my daughter's 18 now, and has been through her mother's crazy, turmoiled life, but she's always been adored, protected and loved.

The best part of that is that she's learned to love herself, just like her mom tried to do, but sometimes failed.

And sometimes loving myself was leaving something that wasn't working. Sometimes that was monogamy.

The best you can do is live what you believe in, hope they learn.

 

[Belegon]

Yes, my daughter's 18 now, and has been through her mother's crazy, turmoiled life, but she's always been adored, protected and loved.

The best part of that is that she's learned to love herself, just like her mom tried to do, but sometimes failed.

And sometimes loving myself was leaving something that wasn't working. Sometimes that was monogamy.

The best you can do is live what you believe in, hope they learn.

their mother is very concerned that she will not know how to explain my deviancy...

the kids are far less concerned than she is... it's already obvious and I think it will become more so as things progress.

 

[Recidiva]

their mother is very concerned that she will not know how to explain my deviancy...

the kids are far less concerned than she is... it's already obvious and I think it will become more so as things progress.

I also had a brother who was gay and killed himself. Surviving brother spent 17 years sharing a room...no idea he was gay until the day of hsi funeral.

Surviving brother is convinced that gayness and suicide are caused by demonic possession. Same surviving brother also tells my nieces and nephews that I'm the reason why the family became burdened with sin. Sends his kids out to convert the heathen.

So lots of variation in a household, I would say, from experience, is possible.

So basically, I'm used to stuff being my fault, and being infuriated by intolerance, while neck deep in the stuff. You get used to it. And it's better than being one of the folks that think like that, all in all.

My daughter was a rebel and handed out her Harry Potter books to kids who weren't allowed to read them.

Vive La Revolucion!

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

There are now 172,000 US Troops in Iraq, a record high, under a Democrat controlled Congress. Ya, wanna talk that away?

Amicus...

I'll take that challenge. The Republicans are preventing a Democrat override of a Bush veto.