• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Polygamy: Why it sucks.

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dagoth Ur

Registered User
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
185
Reaction score
2
http://www.reason.com/rauch/040306.shtml

As I've stated before: Certain men will horde all the women. Men who are unable to find a mate become more likely to turn to crime. Intense competition leads to women being regarded as trophies rather than people.

Anybody care to respond?
 
I think some women can be accused of that aswell, by the way are you serious (before I keep ranting only to realise it's a joke I don't understand) lol.
 
So the only way to stop violence in males is to force women who don't really want to marry them into loveless relationships with them to settle them down? Nice.
 
Why say anything when Zeta pretty much summed up all there was to say?

There are good reasons to oppose polygamy. This ain't one.
 
Zeta said:
So the only way to stop violence in males is to force women who don't really want to marry them into loveless relationships with them to settle them down? Nice.
Click to expand...
What sort of strawman is this? Did anybody RTFA?
 
The article poses a false dilemma, and fails to consider 1 woman, multiple men marriages.

Also, quite frankly, who cares if some men don't get the chance to marry? There's quite a lot of men out there, the majority of them being fairly poor in comparison to the average intelligent person, who are simply dead-weight in the genepool, and who wouldn't be allowed to breed if society wasn't so hung up on being politically correct, and sucking up to Mr Joe Below-Average.
 
It figures. Not only do I see this happening, but in the interest of equal rights, I see no way of stopping it, either. Marrying for love is an institution that is almost lost on today's society. Give them the ability to marry several people, and you better believe that most of the people in the country will do it. They absolutely don't care. The only thing to equalize this is the fact that we also have the institute of divorce, and some of those people will become free game again. The biggest issue, however, will be with the fundamentalist Christians that will shout at the top of their lungs against this sort of thing. I do not want to offend the people for which this sort of thing is part of their belief system. I don't know how well it would blow over, but I would place some kind of restriction to where only the people of those religions could do it, but then I would have multitudes of people converting just so that can do it with as many people as they can stand. It's like telling someone it's ok to cheat on their boy/girlfriend. The idea personally disgusts me, but all of the morals I've ever been taught are out the window anyway, so why should this one make any difference? Furthermore, if anyone tells me that I can't fall in love because all the women belong to someone else, I swear someone is going to die!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: No one is also going to tell me I'm inferior, or I will start with you!
 
Archaic said:
The article poses a false dilemma, and fails to consider 1 woman, multiple men marriages.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The article's supposition that one man/multiple women marriages would outnumber other types of poly marriages is completely groundless. It says that historically, most societies have had marriages like that...um, yeah, and in all those societies, women were opressed and had no rights and were considered property. It's a totally different story when it's a society where women are free to do as they please. If people would actually study biology, instead of simply making stuff up to fit with their preconcieved notions, they'd find out in that literally every species of animal on the planet, BOTH the males and the females have multiple partners and there are valid biological reasons for females seeking multiple mates. Even in species that "mate for life," it can be observed that both males and females "cheat," there are no species where either gender is monogomous.


Also I'm offended by Sceptile's implication that people in poly relationships don't love their partners.
 
I apologize, then. Polyamory confuses me. Mostly because love as I know it only involves one partner, and not multiple ones. Another social problem this induces is who gets to have who and when. It would be very difficult to give equal attention to a multitude of mates. The higher the number, the more difficult it is. People have a hard enough time giving enough attention to one mate sometimes. If you are capable of loving more than one person at once, then you must have some sort of method for dealing with this. Without one, you would have fighting within your own set of partners on who is loved more. You might have that anyway because it is just the nature of a person in love to be possessive. If you can resolve all that, then kudos to you. Personally, I would have nothing to do with anyone that would not be totally dedicated to me alone, but that is only what I believe. I know my opinion means absolutely nothing to anyone but myself.
 
To be quite honest I think these days people get bored with tradition and try to invent new options and break away from what has been popular choices. And I think it's getting a little out of hand because now I honestly think that finding someone genuine enough to be monogomist is becoming increasingly rare (even women are catching up to men). In saying that however it's down to personal it's certainly not something I would be interested in myself.
 
...fails to consider 1 woman, multiple men marriages.
Click to expand...

Do such things even exist? I'm sure they must, somewhere, but the majority of polygamous marriages involve one man and multiple wives.
 
Yes, the majority are one man and multiple wives, but one would imagine that if such things were allowed in the west, where women are far more liberated, the split between polygyny (one man having multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) would be far more even.
 
Barb said:
Do such things even exist? I'm sure they must, somewhere, but the majority of polygamous marriages involve one man and multiple wives.
Click to expand...

Well the definition of polygamy is one man and multiple wives, so all polygamous marriages involve that.

But as far as poly relationships in the west go...well none are marriages since poly marriages aren't allowed. But in the poly community by far the most common is multiple men/multiple women relationships. Virtually the only time you see one man/multiple woman relationships are in BDSM relationships. And with fundamentalist mormons in Utah, and there aren't very many of them.
 
Technically, the BDSM relationships may also involve one woman, multiple men.
 
Sure of course. I didn't say all poly BDSM relationships were one man/multiple women. I just said most one man/multiple women relationships were BDSM. Obviously the female can be the dom with several males, or alternatively the male can be the dom with several females whom he lends out to other males.
 
Why should we assume that polyandry would be as common as polygyny if polygamy were to be legalized? No matter how modern the West may be, aren't men still traditionally more authoritative? and hornier than women, both for cultural and biological reasons? I fail to see how polygyny would not vastly outnumber polyandry.
 
I fail to see your evidence thereof.

Especially as, needless to say, any LEGAL polygamy system should have a bare requirement that all involved partner agree to the new union (ie, if you want to have two wives, your first wife must agree to the notion).
 
Dagoth Ur said:
Why should we assume that polyandry would be as common as polygyny if polygamy were to be legalized? No matter how modern the West may be, aren't men still traditionally more authoritative? and hornier than women, both for cultural and biological reasons? I fail to see how polygyny would not vastly outnumber polyandry.
Click to expand...

So did you actually read the topic, or did you just ignore my posts or what? As I said, in the polyamory community, polygamy absolutely does NOT vastly outnumber polyandry. I mean what are you saying, that if they legalized it, this would suddenly and randomly change, and the whole polyamory community would switch to one male/multiple female relationships?

Also as I said, if you actually bothered to study biology instead of simply making things up to fit your preconvieved notions, you'd realize that there are not "biological" reasons for men to be "hornier", actually there are biological reasons for both genders to seek out many mates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom