Giant Polygamy Sidetrack!

[ChunLing]

It would be truer to say that the Romans (along with many other cultures of the time) didn't bother with anything that we would consider effective contraception. That is, sex between men and women tended to be produce pregnancy because the men and women involved weren't doing much to reduce their natural fertility. But the vagaries of Roman paternity laws (which varied quite a bit over time, their culture did last a fair while) and the existing evidence suggest they didn't lack for socially accepted mechanisms for discarding unwanted children.

I mean, it's hard to claim that you were having sex purely for reproduction if you then literally throw the babies out with the trash. It seems that for the Romans, the main objection to abortion would have been letting some guy feel around the female organs that "belonged" to another man. Often in a very legal sense, though not always.

Men are naturally sexual predators, women are naturally prey (not just sexually, though that's certainly a lot of it). It has nothing to do with socio-economic-political theories or anything like that, this chicken definitely came before that egg. Some men restrain their natural impulses towards predation, some women restrain their impulse to be victims (note the passive voice...there's a real gender studies issue for you). How exactly that (generally small) minority chooses to display their self-mastery may vary as a result of "ideals" promoted in society. The size of that minority may be increased by having more attractive "ideals".

But most sexual behavior isn't idealistic, it's basically instinctive.

[mindstalk]

Actually the Romans are said to have had access to a decent herbal form of contraception, sylphium, which they used so much that the variety went extinct. They also had the most amazing variety of words for various sex acts and obscenities; assuming they knew where babies came from, they'd have had as much access to safe sex as anyone else willing to stick to oral, anal, and other non-repro acts.

I'm not going to touch the predator/prey assertions. But it occurs to me that everyone on the board seems male, except for Impy.

[Sareth]

Nell: Yours was an excellent and well thought response. You brought up some excellent points, which deserve proper discussion.

Unfortunately, I just started into my next textbook and discovered it took me 2 1/2 hours to read 34 pages. I happen to have 213 pages to read before Thursday morning. So, poke me for a reply Friday, ne?

[ChunLing]

The fact that we assume written discourse is masculine in the absence of distinctive or even explicit indications to the contrary is another legitimate gender studies issue, though I wouldn't make too much of it. I've never had any problem with the previously allowable usage of using the masculine gender to indicate non-explicitly feminine entities. In my view, although there is much to be learned about the status of women relative to men in society, the evidence of fundamental social distinctions between men and women doesn't cause those distinctions. Those distinctions arise from differing biology, from morphology and hormones to instincts. The attempt to address the injustices of male and female interactions while simply ignoring the biological roots of those interactions has failed miserably, and will always fail miserably, just like a theater crew trying to put out a fire by using color gels to try and mask the flames.

[jackfrost]

This is going to be quite (no, seriously) long, and please don't take personal offense at anything I say here, I don't mean it personally (Especially since I don't know any of you personally).

I don't think any healthy society can have polygyny as a normal thing. Normally accepted, but given human birth ratios, if most women are in 2+ wife situations, most men must be wifeless.

I have three issues with this statement.... a) it assumes human ratios are 1:1 M:F across all demographics, b) that all people *would* end up married and most importantly c) that you consider current examples of monogamous society to be healthy.

Yes, genetically we probably have around 1:1 ratio at birth, as genetically that seems to be the norm of species that reproduce sexually, but i think if you consider survival rates, society traditions, etc. I would actually say that generally speaking, the ratio is not 1:1, and may in fact be skewed as there being more men than women, at least until mid age. Given that women tend to live longer than men, I would guess that any data on this would graph as a bell curve... and given that there is no generally "you get married at this age" law, and everyone gets married at random ages (and most kids get married way to early, to get divorced a few years later if they are lucky), I think using this as an argument against polygamy is flawed. It seems to me that you want to continue the trend of "majority rules" versus actually allowing people to make choices, leading to whats best for all.

Worse, you are assuming that any society in existence completely "uses" its men and women to create perfectly matched sets. I would guess that 25% of people never get married (and this does not include the people who get married young, divorced and then never remarry), and that number is only going to go up over time due to our laws being archaic and not in line with the "real world." Laws are typically this way, as most laws are created based off of traditions and morals enforced by an ancient method of control... IE, religion. And that is exactly what religion is, a method of control designed to force people to conform to a manual written by various people over the age (I apologize if anyone in here is religious... I don't have an issue with someone believing in God, etc... just worship privately, in whatever method makes sense to you and that you've come up with on your own. Organized religion itself is a cult, a organization dedicated to your submission).

My biggest issue is that you seem to think that the current held view of marriage is healthy. The last statistic I saw was that 50% of marriages in the US ended in divorce (I forget the average length). By any measure of success, 50% is failing... and as the years past, that number will probably increase, unless people stop getting married for the wrong reasons. Of course, you also have the people practicing secret polygamy... all those men and women, cheating on their spouses (who they may love and still cheat on). Now I'm not saying that all of those people belong in a polygamous relationship, but the choice should exist... It seems that the conception exists that if polygamous relationships were legally sanctioned "everyone would be in one," whereas its just making the choice legal... or do you believe that as soon as gay marriages are legalized (and they will be, eventually), you will have to go have one? Those of us arguing for more freedom don't want to convert you, just to make the choice available. Good chances are that most people would NOT be in, just like most people are NOT in a gay relationship (taken in raw numbers, obviously gay people should be free to be in any relationship they want).

In a polygamous relationship, affluent or good looking or *insert attribute* partners would have the advantage and would be flocked to immediately (they already do in monogamy, only if polygamy were implemented this tendency would be far more pronounced) , leaving the less affluent/advantaged with no opportunity to reproduce. Implement polygamy and gradually reproduction will be a privilege tacitly reserved for people with certain attributes, effectively DECREASING genetic versatility.

Yes, this has happened for eternity basically... its typically called natural selection. This also goes to show that you assume that there are only "high quality" polygamous relationships, and that there are none at any other end of the scale, or between... which is a mistake. True, the ratio will be skewed towards "quality" but thats natural... and already happens in monogamous relationship pools.

I could have quoted the whole block there, but basically EVERY point you made also applies to monogamous relationships, and also continues the assumption of "if it was available, everyone would do it."

Polygamy just lets you pick and choose among a potential closetful of people depending on the situation...it's self serving, cheap and easy. The way my narrow minded, idiotic self sees it, Polygamy is and has always been about sex, because if it were about bonding/emotions, friendships are sufficient and the only difference between a friendship and a relationship is sex.

This just shows that you are already predisposed against polygamy... and at least you see that

Ok... I hope I can convey this properly, but... bullshit. Sex can easily be self serving, cheap, and easy in a monogamous relationship as well, so lets ignore that part of your statement. Sex is an extremely emotional activity (done right anyways) and to say that there shouldn't be sex in a polygamous relationship is basically the same as saying there shouldn't be sex in a monogamous relationship... you're just allowing your biased view to ignore that. Its also bullshit that "friends are sufficient" or that the only difference between the two is the act of sex... there are levels of intimacy, and plain old friendship is far from a sexual relationship. There's a level of emotional attachment between partners in a sexual relationship that simply don't exist between simple friends... and your statement is totally negated by "friends with benefits" which is exactly that... a plain friendship where the friends have sex, but no significant emotional attachment.

Love... its supposedly what separates "the one" from everyone else.In a monogamous relationship, its supposed to be what you feel for your partner, and only your partner... but: Its absurd to believe that out of all the emotions people have, only a SINGLE one of them can only be directed towards a single entity.... humans for damned sure have the ability to love more than one other personal, although they are conditioned from birth to believe otherwise. You can feel every other emotion there is about multiple people, but its impossible to love (in a romantic/sexual nature) more than one? Give me a break... and people wonder why so many people cheat. I would argue that forced (in that its the only option) monogamy is actually worse than polygamy, since it basically tries (and fails quite often) to repress part of your emotions. A

People are all but infallible and this setup has the potential of bringing harm to a greater number of people accidentally.

Because all monogamous relationships are full of honesty, and no one in them ever cheats and gets any disease. Yes, there are more partners, but I'd actually assume that there is less or equal risk of any disease, etc because since its a larger group, chances are it will stay a self contained group, rather than in a monogamous relationship where its your partner or cheat... in this case its one of your partners.

(as an aside, "all but infallible" means they are infallible... which is not what you meant, I believe)

A person only has so much time to spend with a partner and handle work and other obligations. The way I see it, multiple partners only increase the time/commitment/material demands. Spending equal, substantial amounts of time with all of them can be all but impossible if you want to substain other aspects of your life. You may even neglect partners and destroy relationships because there's not enough time.

Also, part of what gives sex meaning and intimacy is the fact it is supposedly reserved for one, carefully chosen person. If this behaviour is expressed with multiple people, it inevitably cheapens it. If the network learns of where they stand in terms of sexual competency, resentment may flourish, hierarchies will begin to appear as well. "Primaries, secondaries, tertiaries". People are gradually objectified in and out of the bedroom.

Quality vs Quantity is what I think when I see this issue. If reproduction is not a priority, why isn't one partner enough? For the bonding/emotional aspect, there's friendships. Why must there be sex for these to be fulfilling?

Yes, time is finite... but you are looking at it from a monogamous point of view, where each person has to contribute half of "demands." In a polygamous relationship, ALL demands are spread out over the group... and it doesn't need to be equal. Yes, its harder and you may destroy relationships, but you may have also done that if you were in a monogamous relationship.

What gives sex meaning and intimacy is the emotional context, it was never "supposedly reserved for one carefuly chosen person." Thats your prejudice coming back to the forefront... to assume that it is cheap because you love more than one person and are willing to express it. As for the rest of that statement, yeah it could happen... but really, you are looking at it wrong. You are continually looking at it as a monogamous person in a polygamous relationship... just because YOU might prefer someone, doesn't mean that everyone else has the same preference. Inevitably, others won't.

Again, there are different levels of intimacy. You can share stuff with your partner(s) you would never share with your friends, and if you need help with your partner, you can go to another partner if you have one.

Your view on polygamous relationships is very very narrow, forced through the view of monogamy.

I don't care much for marriage, but I always saw it as the couple's public display of confidence in the solidity of their relationship. They are sure that this person is the one for them, and are not afraid to show it. It's not all negatives.

Where did you get this idea? Based on the evidence that surrounds us, I can safely say that while it may be the reason for some to get married, a great deal of marriages have nothing to do with this.... IE, married because of pregnancy, etc.

I wonder, how do you handle things in a polygamous household when you're the only person that doesn't want children and the rest do? You're part of the household so chances are you will have to provide for children that aren't yours. Alternatively you could have the one household where only two people reproduce and the collective pays for it simply because everyone fucks everyone. It hardly seems fair to me. Monogamy gets an edge on fairness when it comes to decision making because the people affected by it are the exact same amount of people in the relationship.

Same thing happens in monogamous relationships all the time... except in that case, the relationship breaks up, or someone in it bends and then theres a miserable 20+ years ahead. In a polygamous relationship, multiple things could happen, so I can't really say what would happen... but there options. Just like in a monogamous relationship, the person in the minority could leave... or could bend. The difference is that if the person stays, s/he can almost set the level of involvement s/he wants with the children, and the slack is there to be taken up by the rest of the group... and if its not working out for the person, s/he can leave and there is still a group there behind to handle everything, as opposed to when s/he leaves, its 50% of all resources gone. And if s/he leaves, there is plenty of emotional support for those left behind, since its not 50%/50%.

This makes it seem like you can only count on spouses (not friends nor family) for comfort... Which makes me think, with that many partners, your life becomes centered in the network, and you can alienate friends as a result because they are lower in the scale of priorities.

Friends should always be lower in your priorities than your relationship family. Always. Your birth family... well, that depends.

As for your birth family verses your relationship family... that depends on how close you are to your birth family, and other factors... Imagine if you were in a lesbian polygamous relationship (all women) and your parents (who you were very close to) were very religious... any issues you have around your identity you aren't going to your family for first. Of course, you may be estranged from your birth family for whatever reason, etc. Too many scenarios to go over, but in general there are things you can't go to your friends for, and there are situations where your birth family isn't an option.

@ChunLing

Well, I'm not even sure how to say this, but... you are one of those people that helped create our current state of political correctness. I honestly don't care for how politically correct everyone has gotten in recent years... but lets fix real problems, not get all offended that the masculine form is used in gender neutral text. Equality is created through indifference over terms used, not the forced use of other terms.

As for your statement "men are predators, women are prey"... such blanket statements do a huge disservice to both the men and women it references. Yes, there is some validity behind it... but a small amount, back down in the subconscious, the hidden traits that ensured our survival as a species from the beginning. Even with that small amount of validity, the words aren't predator and prey... more like protector and protected possession... or maybe predator and weaker predator (women can be vicious between themselves). Yes, sometimes it gets out of hand, but when that happens its not because all men are just waiting for their self imposed conditioning to break, but because theres something wrong with the men involved. Even if there were no men, there would still be predator and prey between the women.

@ Sareth, I particularly agree with your belief on how society shapes people... because I wasn't shaped by society, and I don't have nearly any of the preconceived notions on right and wrong that society seems to hold self evident.

Basically, until I was 15 I spent my time home schooled by various tutors for a few hours a day, and exploring nature (I lived on a 900 acre property, most of which was wilderness)... there was never anyone religious around me, no one tried to ever tell me anything about right and wrong, just not to hurt others. Logically, it makes sense that hurting others should really be the only test placed against everything, but its amazing how lucky I was to be raised where that was the only thing that was ever told to me... and I was raised by my grandfather who always said that humans could do anything, and that love and human nature was infinite (although I'm nearly certain he didn't mean for it to go as far as polygamy, but maybe he did).

I think starting at 11 I had internet access (dialup, heh) on and off and I started to explorer the internet (and quickly found porn, haha)... but the biggest method of information absorption came from reading books from the local library. Since it was so far away, I'd check out 20 books or so a week, and devour them. And maybe through luck, or whatever, by the time I entered society at 15 (10th grade high school), I was already pretty set in my beliefs (although I didn't think of them as such)... but there was stuff I went along with, and stuff I didn't... it wasn't until later that I realized that I was following this system I had come up with before ever joining the masses of society, with all of the crazy quirks that came along with it.

[Imp-Chan]

Just as a further note on the difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship not only being sex, I also don't think romantic love and sex are at all inter-dependent. Linked in a majority of cases, yes, but I find I'm reluctant to invalidate the relationships of all the celibate or asexual people out there just by assuming that only sexual romantic relationships are real.

Sure, very close friendships are loving relationships, and you're right that they are not the same as romantic relationships. The distinction is not one of sex, nor the trappings of romance, but perhaps one of impact? I love my friends very much, but at the end of the day a hug from a friend (even one that I find attractive) just doesn't have the same underlying power in my life as a hug from Michael. His hugs just make the world better no matter what, and while a hug from a friend is also an excellent thing that brightens the world, it doesn't carry the same weight. I think our language makes the distinction very clearly by calling it love or IN love. A romantic relationship is actively enrolled in and participating in the feeling of love. A loving friendship has a more passive approach.

^-^'

P.S. Also, enough with this whole women being prey thing. I realize that some of that deep subconscious stuff exists, but every time you describe the roles and outlooks of women and men I feel a need to double check the contents of my pants to make sure I haven't got it wrong. I don't really have a problem with generalizing gender roles, but I do prefer that the generalizations be identifiable as specific observable patterns of behavior rather than metaphoric extrapolation of those patterns. For example, it'd be fine to say that women go to the bathroom in groups and stay social throughout and that this indicates a different attitude towards the role of bodily functions in life than that exhibited by men who go to the bathroom singly and ignore each other while there, but it would not be fine to simply characterize women as herd creatures to be preyed on by the more solitary male hunter creatures.

Plus, anyone who is really paying attention will notice that throughout history even when the woman was initially treated as prey and later treated as property by the man (which she wasn't always), she traditionally still almost exclusively controlled the household (and by extension the family unit) in practice, giving her the actual position of authority in the vast majority of cases. The husband became the figurehead, the muscle to appoint and support her power within the group, provide for the group, and tackle outside forces that threatened the group, but she was the primary decision-maker when it came to daily life. Those TV bits where the men sit around to complain to their friends about their wife making them try a new diet or redecorate the living room or go fix the garage are not exactly pointing out a new trend.

[mindstalk]

In a lot of hunter-gatherer or nomadic cultures, the woman *owns* the house. The man knows he's been divorced when he comes home and his things are outside. The Aka and Tuareg come particularly to mind.

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/hewlett/Introaka.html makes good reading.

[ChunLing]

Just to reiterate something I thought I made fairly clear (and much more concisely than some other people), I do not believe that there is any point in trying to address the fundamental differences between men and women by becoming hysterical (and I will point out that I feel that there is a good deal of validity in the connotations one might draw from the origins of that particular term) about what can only be distant symptoms of such biologically determined distinctions.

Indeed, the main failure of "feminism" has been and continues to be the deliberate obfuscation of the simple fact that men and women are obviously different in many significant ways.

Much of this difference has to do with the differing reproductive imperatives between women, who cannot vastly increase the quantity of their reproductive opportunities and thus have to focus on rejecting low-quality reproduction even if that reduces the quantity of reproduction by a substantial percentage, and men, who can potentially increase the quantity of reproductive opportunities by several orders of magnitude with almost negligible sacrifices in the quality of their highest investment reproduction. Because all of the instinctual responses to sex (including all physical pleasure and most emotional effects) are shaped by the overall reproductive advantages and disadvantages of given types of sexual behavior, men and women have different attitudes towards sex.

If you derive any amount of physical pleasure from sex, it is because your biology has shaped your brain to experience a neurological reinforcement from engaging in sex. In other words, because sexual pleasure (just like the pleasure of eating, or sleeping, or breathing) serves to promote passing on your genes to the next generation. To deny this is to claim to be unaffected by the fundamental laws of mathematics itself, let alone biology.

No rational discussion of sexuality as it affects society as a whole can avoid confronting the question of essential distinctions between male and female sexuality unless it posits that the society is composed entirely of persons of only one sex. While such societies do exist, we are not discussing such a society.

[Imp-Chan]

Indeed, the main failure of "feminism" has been and continues to be the deliberate obfuscation of the simple fact that men and women are obviously different in many significant ways.

Actually, these days I'd take it further and go with the main failure being really bad logic. The secondary failure is treating change as other people's responsibility.

I would also never deny that men and women are different, but then I also don't think that everyone has to be the same to be equally important and worthy of respectful treatment.

I think I am bad at feminism. I tend to class it with all the other isms, like racism, sexism, activism, etc.

^-^'

P.S. The reproductive imperative may be the origin of the biological impulse, but that does not necessarily mean it carries over undiluted into society and active psychology. The desire to reproduce is not a pre-requisite to enjoying sex, or contraception would never have been invented.

[ChunLing]

Well, I'll grant that conscious, rational behavior is usually directed towards different objectives than instinctive behavior. It's one of the mysteries of intelligence, that more intelligent people aren't actually more fit in a simple biological sense, so it becomes difficult to explain why intelligence exists at all using evolutionary arguments.

But, it is the case that many of the objectives towards which people consciously devote themselves, including all physical pleasures and most social status, are heavily influenced by instinctive factors shaped by the reproductive imperative. People who devote themselves to sexual pleasure (or being valued members of their community) may consciously wish to avoid the burden of child-rearing, but they will nevertheless act out the biologically imposed script which sexual pleasure (and social status) originated to drive. The entire point of instinct is that you don't have to consciously want the end result that instinctive behavior produces.