Giant Polygamy Sidetrack!

Because it only took Viking-Sensei three years (and the approaching end of Errant Story) to come up with a better name for "General Discussions"
User avatar
Imp-Chan
Not Yet Dead
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 10th, 2007, 11:03 am
Twitter @: ImpChan
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Imp-Chan »

But were we talking about instincts or behavior? As you mentioned, in an intelligent species instincts are not the determining factor in behavior. They might drive emotional responses to some extent, but that's not really what we're discussing. The cause of the emotions is much less important here than the emotions themselves and what we as people choose to do about them.

^-^'
Because scary little devil girls have to stick together.
Image
User avatar
mindstalk
Typo-Seeking Missile
Posts: 916
Joined: November 9th, 2007, 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by mindstalk »

There's an essential distinction between male and female sexuality only as an abstraction and simplification, one that ignores wide ranges of variations among men, variations among women, the existence of homosexuals, bisexuals, intersexs, transexuals, asexuals. You can define a couple of abstract categories that seem to make evolutionary sense, but individuals do not all fall nicely in those categories, and it is individuals who have to make decisions about their own happiness.
User avatar
Nell
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 308
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 7:59 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Nell »

-_- Sareth I'm actually scared of asking for a reply because everyone is posting wall-o-texts by now and I have the attention span of a ferret. Go for it anyway

I see I got replies. I'll respond to them eventually, but it'll take me a bit to read.
Precursor of wall-o-text post avalanches.
User avatar
ChunLing
Advocate of Justice
Posts: 858
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by ChunLing »

There is an even bigger problem with deciding to lump everyone into one big homogeneous group and treat all the differences between them (as individuals) as though they don't matter.

I'm not claiming that some men don't have a more feminine sense of sexuality, or vice versa. But inventing an idea of sexual morality (or ethics or whatever) that is based entirely on the idea that everyone experiences the same biological impulses towards sex is sure to hurt a lot of people.

Someone (and I don't like to name names in this kind of example) brought up the ridiculous idea that sexual expertise is a transferable skill...something that almost no women and probably very few men really believe when it comes to how they are treated by a lover, but that is always brought up in arguments about sexual morality as though it were an obvious true. I personally don't want a lover to be good at fucking me the way everyone else likes being fucked, because I don't want to be generically fucked. I would rather avoid that experience altogether. Frankly, I don't believe that even many men have such interchangeable personal tastes, even though from a biological perspective male sexuality does trend towards a more focused affair. But very few women really want a guy that's "skilled". For one thing, those guys tend to make boorish companions both in and out of the bedroom, and for another...another woman is almost always going to be better if you're just looking at "skill". I was trying to avoid mentioning that many machines exist that are also more skilled, but I guess I'm not really holding anything back in this post, and really that's not true. A "toy" can be used, but it should be used by someone rather than acting on it's own. Or rather...I'm going to stop digging on this one, actually.

The point is that women who think that men and women are the same in their fundamental sexual impulses are setting themselves up for a lot of disappointing relationships with men. And men who believe women are just softer versions of men are setting up to provide the disappointing relationships.
Kill...more...elves.
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Sareth »

It has gotten rather massive, hasn't it, Nell? Still, thanks for the reminder!

I'll crack something out tomorrow, as right now I am recovering from drinking a good bit of beer last night and brewing a good bit of it this morning. I also may be splitting things out, as there are several interesting topics, and it might be time to move them to the appropriate forum.
Image
Image
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Sareth »

And I'm working on it now. Sorry about the delay.
Image
Image
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

The Dialogic of Polygamy

Post by Sareth »

This is a reply to discussions taking place starting here in one of the discussion threads that got massively derailed.

The discussion pertains to whether or not polygamy is something that should be permitted or not. I'm not going to bother with a good review of the discussion prior to this point.

quoting Nell
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.
Taken completely alone, with no other factors to consider, and assuming the general bastardy of the human species (not necessarily a bad assumption given humanity nuked Hiroshima and built Dachau), and adding in the belief that humans are 1:1 male female (the actual ratio is 100:105 at birth and climbs to 100:127 by age 65) this is true. Of course, as you admit, it's already technically true. There are plenty of people who insist on pursuing matings with only the rich and good looking (though I would ask "what constitutes 'good looking'?") However, there is a very sizable portion of the population, probably a majority, for whom there are far more factors involved. Issues such as personality factor, drive, and personal interests also are highly important. These factors mitigate this a great deal. Of course, if you're dead broke, look like you were hit by a flaming fuel oil truck, have no real ambition, collect celebrity boogers, and are a total asshole, you're going to be shit out of luck. Of course, you already are anyway...

More importantly is the fact that most people wouldn't be participating in polygamy even given the option. For one, there's economic consideration. Polygamy is only economically advantageous if the combined average income is higher that of the average monogamous couple.The average income of a man in the U.S. in 2005 was just shy of $41,000. The average income of a woman was just over $31,000. Given this, a monogamous couple made up of these "norms" would average $36,000. However, add another "normal" woman, and this drops to a little over $34,000. Add a fourth, $33,500. (Of course, it goes up if you are adding men rather than women.) Of course, this example isn't normal. *Part* of why the average income for women is lower than for men is the lower "employment" rate for women (a bullshit distinction that disregards keeping the house as "not working"). If we had a trio where two are working outside the home at $41,000 each while one keeps house, the average income becomes only a touch over $27,000. Frankly, Polygamy would not be economically feasible for most.

Even if it were economically feasible, this still doesn't mean that it would reduce anyone's chances. First, most people wouldn't take the option anyway. It's too complicated, and most people probably wouldn't want to take the risks. And second, even if they do, so long as it's really Polygamy and not just Polygyny or Polyandry, the amount of people supposedly taken out of the pool would be roughly in parity. So we're taking ten percent of the men and ten percent of the women out of the "monogamy" column, resulting in... the same ratio as before. Your odds of finding that "special someone" (or someones) haven't really changed.
Also, if those partners that are favoured have any kind of defect, the more chances they have at reproducing the higher the rate of births with genetic defects.
A joe that is healthy and reproductively fit could be ignored for the dude with *insert genetic issue here* if the latter is rich or charismatic and if the former is, compared to all other candidates...just not lovable enough to have a time slot in other people's lives because they are too busy with the prettier/richer/sexier ones. And in cases like the one I just mentioned, genetic defects would go on the rise, not be curbed.
You're actually arguing against yourself here. On the one hand, you are saying that a polygamous group is more likely to pass on genetic bad news if the favored partner has a genetic problem. Yet at the same time you are arguing that if one of two partners has an issue, they won't be given as much chance to reproduce. So which is it?

More importantly, you are arguing that reproduction is the driving force behind any form of marriage. Historically I would have agreed. However, I would posit that we are altering into a society where the reasons for marriage are increasingly reducing reproduction's importance in comparison to companionship and economic expectations. I know several marriages that have no children, and will have no children, as the marriage partners specifically don't want to reproduce.
Also, interestingly enough, in first world and developing countries, the trend is for the cultured and affluent to NOT reproduce. The further down the social strata you go, the higher the birth rates. This means it's possible that polygamy would effectively kill the already low birth rates in first world countries.
You say this like it's a bad thing. While I'm not one of the doom-sayers that insist we are rapidly breeding ourselves into an unsupportable state, and soon we'll have widespread starvation because we just can't grow enough food, I will agree that we really don't need nearly as high a population on this rock as we currently have. Yes, that does mean that the First World nations won't grow in population as quickly as developing nations. But the seeming threat of that only materializes if they also develop the infrastructure to use that population to our disadvantage. The fun thing is, if they develop to that degree, they become... First World Nations. I'm okay with this.
As for third and second world countries, reverse this, and add lack of sexual education, protection, abortion rights and hygiene. You'll have a boom in population, homeless/orphaned children and venereal diseases.
Which we already do. Perhaps the solution, then, is to simply to deny the third world marriage rights altogether? That would be the logical extension...
Quoting me
if a fertile partner marries an infertile partner, the fertile partner's reproductive potential is wasted.)
A person can always divorce the infertile partner, or adopt a child that would otherwise be uncared for.
I'm all for the later. We don't have nearly enough people willing to take the step to parent the innocent victims of life's bastardy. The former... While pragmatic, I have issue with people who view their partner as nothing but a genetic donor to be disposed of the moment it becomes clear there's blanks being shot.
Sometimes it isn't only amateurs, a more skilled partner can stick with the less skilled partner instead of just jumping to a nicer fuck, thus adding to the bonding aspect of sex. It's sticking with the other person and nurturing them despite their weaknesses that makes a relationship special. 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.
You're assuming that polygamists won't stick by someone needing nurturing. I will grant you that there will be cases that are just what you say. People are people, and that means there are plenty of bastards. I will even grant that the "good ones" will have momentary lapses. But the poly relationships I know usually are made up of people who will specifically nurture one another. Yes, one person will be better at A, another at B, and one isn't particularly good at any of them. They still care for one another, try to help "teach" one another to be better at what they are weak at, and accept that in some things that person won't be the preferred partner, but in other things, that person will.

You're also reducing Polygamy to nothing more than an endorsement of sex. You can level the same charge at Monogamy if you want, only saying that rather than being self-serving, cheap, and easy, it's oppressive, boring, and socially stunted. Personally, I think either of these views is pretty poor. More importantly, I think that they deny 75% of the rational for modern marriage. It may have been about nothing more than sex once, but these days, there are far too many people not caring about reproducing who are married and far too many people fucking like rabbits without marriage for that to be what it's about anymore.
Also, as an aside wouldn't less skilled partners come to resent the more skilled ones or the more *insert attribute here* ones? Coaching doesn't always help people catch up to inherent talent or appearance.
If that person isn't open to new ideas and possibilities, probably. If, on the other hand, the person is willing to learn, probably not. People are people. Let's not confuse the "lowest common denominator" for "the entirety of the species."
Cynicism aside, an outbreak in a polygamous relationship involves far more collateral damage than in a monogamous relationship. In the time it takes for a person to be diagnosed with venereal diseases (think AIDS for example) they could easily infect their entire network of partners, same goes for the partners, and the partners of the partners, ad nauseum. People are all but infallible and this setup has the potential of bringing harm to a greater number of people accidentally.
This is certainly a real possibility. However, this is no less true in monogamy. Either "thou shalt not fuck around outside of marriage," in which case no one goes outside of the marriage, monogamous or polyamorous, and thus there is no risk, OR "fuckit, who cares?" in which case saying only one couple marriages is no more a defense than allowing polyamorous marriages. Yes, there are more people to be harmed WITHIN the marriage, but I would posit that if someone was fucking around outside that carelessly, there are enough people outside the marriage being fucked with to spread that unwanted wealth around.

In fact, let me flip it a little. If the biggest reason for people to "cheat" is boredom with the partner, the polygamist runs LESS risk here, as there is more variety within the endorsed bedroom. It'll take longer to get bored.
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.
In which case, do not have children, because they will take away time and material resources. Don't have friends either, as going out with the guys for a beer takes away from the spouse. Don't have hobbies, don't volunteer for charity, don't...

You are correct that there is a finite amount of time, and the more people we have in it, the less time each gets. But it is more complex than that. First, time can overlap. If I had two wives, or a wife and a husband (I'm open to the possibilities) I can enjoy spending time with both AT THE SAME TIME. A discussion at the dinner table, perhaps a three way game of Cribbage, yes, even a (OMGLOLWHUT) threesome in the bedroom. There's also the QUALITY of the time being spent. If you spend six hours a day with one person, but neither of you really gets much out of it, that's far less healthy for the relationship than just one hour a day that's completely and utterly filled with emotional and mental bonding.

Each partner is going to be different here. For some people, they need almost constant connection. It doesn't have to be very good connection, just so long as there is presence. Time spent away from them will reduce the quality of the relationship. For some, near constant connection is actually intimidating. (Hello... me...) A good Poly relationship will actually cater to this, while a bad one will make a total hash of things.
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.
There are two things here. First is an assumption about what is inherently "right" in regards to sex. Second is an assumption that these results cited don't already exist.

The assumption that " what gives sex meaning and intimacy is the fact it is supposedly reserved for one, carefully chosen person." This is a societal belief that I have not found to live up to expectations. Now, admittedly I'm only one person, working from my own experiences, but reflecting back on it, my most recent partner (in a list) has actually been MORE intimate and meaningful for me than "that one person" back when I first had sex. FAR more. By your argument, every partner I've had should have been less meaningful and more public-commodity than the last. We have created this myth around our sexuality that is actually baseless.

As for the thought of hierarchies and objectification, I would argue we already have that. In terms of objectification, I have heard plenty of men outright state that they could care less if their woman gets off during sex, or enjoys it. It's all about the person. (I have heard this on very rare occasion from women, too, though usually when they say it they're saying "Occasionally I want it to be all about me, but usually it's about us.") This is a societal problem caused by the objectification of sex as a sales tool, and the individual as the ultimate focal point. It's not about whether there's two people in the bed or three, it's about society becoming a "sex sells, and it's all about me" society. And I would argue that we already are a hierarchical society sexually. Only now it's between "my spouse and my affairs." In fact, monogamy only societies actually create more hierarchy as they do NOT allow anyone to share first priority. With Polygamy it's unlikely that you'll be able to have two truly equal first priorities, but it's at least possible.
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.
Sure, I can agree here. I'm just positing that for some, they'd like the same right to publicly display confidence in the solidity of the team relationship. They're sure that these few people are the ones for them and not afraid to show it.

Only the current law will arrest them if they do show it, label them bigamists, and fine/jail them. Usually after public lambasting via the news media.
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.
Polygamists will handle this about the same way monogamists do. Someone(s) will either leave the relationship, or end up giving in. I've seen it happen plenty in monogamous relationships. In fact, I've seen it often result in divorce only AFTER the "do not want" is forced to anyway, which just fucks things up something fierce. Monogamy may reduce the odds that someone's not going to like the decision, but believe me, it doesn't make it at all fair.

I would even argue that it improves the long term outlook once things DO blow up (if they do.) If two people want children and the third doesn't, and children come along, when the Do Not Want person gets pissed and leaves, there are still two caretakers, not just one, trying to carry the load.

Yes, none of this is fair, but monogamous life isn't hardly fair either, so it's really not the standard to go by... (Should be, but let's deal with what is.)
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.
And this isn't true with monogamy? I'm sure we all know "that guy" who got a girlfriend/wife and suddenly disappeared from our lives, never to be seen again.

More importantly, no one can be everything to everyone. I have three friends (whose sex I shall not reveal lest it confuse the issue.) Sometimes, I go to C when I need support, because what i really need is someone who can totally sympathize with my distress over what a wreck my personal life is. Sometimes I go to P because what I need is someone to just get utterly drunk with and swear at because I have had a pissy day. C will not be sympathetic there. And sometimes I need someone to just gnaw a particularly ugly bit of theory over because it's really causing problems for my world view,and J is right there for that, while C and P will both be confused at the question. Now, supposing all three were women, and all three were available and interested, which one do I privilege over the other two knowing full well that 2/3rds of the time that person is NOT going to be nearly as supportive?

Quoting jackfrost
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.
In terms of marriage as practiced these days, it's far more complex than that. Yes, our current "one man, one woman" definition does come out of the predominantly Christian heritage of the West. However, in use it has expanded radically to be more than just an endorsement of one religious perspective.

The legal definition of marriage is now heavily involved in:
Licensing fees
Tax determinations
Economic measurements
Insurance determinations
Inheritance rights
etc.

It may have started religious, and the religious movements may be the loudest proponents for narrow definitions, but you can be assured that there are plenty of political/economic forces at play as well. For example, if gays are legally allowed to marry, then insurance companies will suddenly find themselves having to cover gay spouses at lower rates (primary and dependent persons) than they do now (two primaries). Married persons pay slightly less on Social Security and Federal Income taxes, so allowing gays to marry would reduce SS and Income tax revenues for the Fed. Toss Polygamy into the mix and now treating people as unequal before the law owing to marital status becomes much harder.

Alright! Good discussion so far! Let's keep it up and keep it CIVIL...
Image
Image
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: 2010-09-02: What the Hell Am I Even Saying?

Post by Sareth »

And I have a post up here regarding polygamy. I also intend to do one as a separate thread regarding gendered identity in response to ChunLi's comments, but first a break for some food.

Impy Edit: I've been considering splitting this topic for the last three pages, so thanks for giving me a bit of a push off my behind to do so. The split topic has now been merged with your general discussions post and moved to General Discussions. I feel really bad for the Comment Golem, I might have broken him.
Image
Image
User avatar
Nell
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 308
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 7:59 pm

Re: Giant Polygamy Sidetrack!

Post by Nell »

I just discovered this thread looking for the raccoon thread.
-_- I wanna cry/throw the towel because of the sheer size of the text walls.
It does say something about this board that you can carry such a discussion in a peaceful manner though.
Precursor of wall-o-text post avalanches.
User avatar
ChunLing
Advocate of Justice
Posts: 858
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 4:32 pm

Re: Giant Polygamy Sidetrack!

Post by ChunLing »

...

How exactly would we carry it out in a meaningfully less peaceful manner, given that the most aggressive thing it is possible for anyone to do is post giant text walls?
Kill...more...elves.
Post Reply