A topic in which I expound my prodigious ignorance of polyamory. Posted 20 Jan 2018, 19:18 by CorruptUser

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

A topic in which I expound my prodigious ignorance of polyamory. Posted 20 Jan 2018, 19:18 by CorruptUser

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:18 pm UTC

I'm vehemently opposed to "poly" relationships for a very simple reason: there aren't enough women to go around. For every extra wife or girlfriend or mistress I take, another man has to either be single or otherwise "occupied"; deceive him and send him on some holy quest, a crusade, a jihad, something to convince him to be a menace in some other land, maybe kill some other guys and spread our clan while I sit home and fuck his and several other guys' would-be wives. Make sure the women don't have any say, convince our people that feminism is evil, because the true danger of feminism and giving women equal opportunities for work and equal protections under the law is that they wouldn't have to put up with an unfair relationship.

Perhaps one of the greatest things that Christianity gave, or in a way took away, was the ban on divorce. For the first few centuries, before Constantine, Christians were the orphans, the poor, the people otherwise shunned by their gods, and missionaries came and offered them something the other gods did not; love. That no matter your lot in life, no matter how the rest of society shut you up, there would be someone who loved you unconditionally. "Opiate of the masses" indeed; opiates were not viewed as illicit narcotics but as painkillers and antidepressants. In Roman society, men would typically marry a young girl in her mid to late teens, the woman had a good chance of dying in childbirth, but if she survived there was still a good chance the man would divorce her once she developed wrinkles. The spurned wives were among those who were source material for Christianity. The extra men? Well, Rome was one of the most war-obsessed empires to ever exist. Of course, Edward Gibbon did blame Christianity for Rome's collapse.

</random_stream_of_thought>

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:25 pm UTC

did you know women can have multiple partners in a poly relationship? the more you know.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:43 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:did you know women can have multiple partners in a poly relationship? the more you know.


Did you know that isn't anywhere nearly as common as the other way around? The more you know.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:47 pm UTC

I don't see why we need relationship contracts in the first place. We should focus our law, pensions, benefits, and safety nets around individuals, not families. Nothing prevents you from opening a joint bank account, cosigning a lease, or having joint ownership of a private trust, regardless of the relationship.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:49 pm UTC

Well, some people are poly, unfaithful, unreligious and wanna play around and have multiple partners. And that should be given marriage licenses too. And there are... women... everywhere. Half our population is women. Your complaints fall on the Goddesses' deaf ears 'cause you ain't trying hard enough.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:58 pm UTC

Eh, I don't think polyamory should be criminalized. I just don't think it should be normalized. Same thing with extra-marital sex, pre-marital sex, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, gambling, prostitution, and maybe other vices such as ecstasy or even cocaine and heroin. I'm definitely guilty of a couple of them. Legal, regulated, but not encouraged.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I don't see why we need relationship contracts in the first place. We should focus our law, pensions, benefits, and safety nets around individuals, not families. Nothing prevents you from opening a joint bank account, cosigning a lease, or having joint ownership of a private trust, regardless of the relationship.


because people are assholes, really.

I mean, that's 90% of why law exists, right? To stop the 10% of assholes who want to screw over everyone and to provide a framework for the 90% non-assholes to settle differences with those assholes without resorting to torches and pitchforks.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Weeks wrote:did you know women can have multiple partners in a poly relationship? the more you know.


Did you know that isn't anywhere nearly as common as the other way around? The more you know.
but you are talking about men having lots of women so there aren't "enough women" to "love you unconditionally" implying men are the only ones who have multiple partners. Do you have like a statistic.

CorruptUser wrote: I just don't think it should be normalized
but like fucking why? again. Or do you think it's more common because women are less inclined to have multiple partners? What makes you think that?
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.

elasto
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I don't see why we need relationship contracts in the first place. We should focus our law, pensions, benefits, and safety nets around individuals, not families.

Personally I think they should be focused on children. There's no real reason a childless individual or couple needs extra support from the taxpayer. In fact, a childless couple already has enormous financial advantages over any other grouping I can think of (except perhaps a genuine cooperative).

I mean, the only real argument for married couples getting tax breaks at all is that a stable family promotes better life-outcomes for kids, so why not cut out the middleman..? Spend the money going on married couples on better schools instead or something.

duodecimus
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:28 pm UTC

I don't really consider marriage as an important thing anymore. Divorce is too easy and too common for it to have real spiritual meaning, and marrying for tax reasons is kinda eh. Basing it around children is probably better, assuming the benefits aren't good enough that you'd be incentivized to have a dozen of them to keep in a basement.

Sorta weird how the conservatives are against governments messing with people's personal lives, but also want to actively meddle in people's personal lives.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7519
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:43 pm UTC

I mean, the only real argument for married couples getting tax breaks at all is that a stable family promotes better life-outcomes for kids, so why not cut out the middleman..?

In the Netherlands, the is a legal concept of 'fiscal partnership', that treats other pairs (mostly) the same as a married couple. Married or registered couples are automatically considered as fiscal partnerships for tax purposes. There are limits, basically you have to run a household together. No fucking or children implied, it's the mostly the 'single economic unit' aspect of marriage that matters to the treasury, and which can be expanded beyond marriage.

It's not necessarily voluntary either. In certain circumstances fiscal partnership can be fiscally less attractive than two separate accounts ( like government pensions). In such cases, people can get counted as fiscal partnerships without their request.

elasto
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:25 pm UTC

duodecimus wrote:Basing it around children is probably better, assuming the benefits aren't good enough that you'd be incentivized to have a dozen of them to keep in a basement.

Just don't make it direct cash payments and it's fine. Make it financial assistance towards childcare, child healthcare, school funding, university fees or whatever.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:05 am UTC

Child support is a valuable service to struggling single wives and husbands. I wouldn't wanna abolish it and in fact: If deadbeat moms and dads, like, quickie divorce a woman and then never pay her to raise the CHILDREN they Helped Donate Sperm to and or gave birth to? Then I would even support sending them to jail to, "think about it," and come to the decision that they NEED to finance the spawns they helped create w/their efforts, and then like, tried to abandon by leaving w/a quickie divorce case.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:13 am UTC

Parents and children should automatically have certain rights and responsibilities (from/to their children/parents/co-parents/the government/etc), regardless of any formal arrangement between the co-parents, unless those default rights and responsibilities are otherwise nullified or waived by legal contracts or court orders or what not. So marriage is not needed for that.

Everything else should just be a simple matter of legal contracts and incorporation. Want someone to have visitation rights and ability to make medical decisions for you if you're incapacitated? A contract can grant that. Want to be treated as a single financial unit because you share a household together? Incorporate as a kind of legal partnership. There's no reason the law should care about who or how many people are party to these kinds of arrangements, so long as they're all persons legally competent to enter into contracts like that.

You say marriage is just a convenient way of combining all of that together in one easy package? No reason you can't just literally combine all those things in one package, and ask for that from your favorite lawyer or legal document service place or whatever. They can even call that a "marriage bundle" or something if they want.

Marriage as a legally irrelevant social arrangement with the ceremonies and symbolism and all of that can be left to churches or individuals to handle as they please.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:17 am UTC

Y'know Pfhorrest's thing brings up a question for me: Can you even sign a contract if you are mentally ill? I've heard in some places that mentally ill people are considered like minors and unable to sign legal contracts. Is that true? And if so: LOL too bad for u mind sicknesses wards of the states/hospital patients ain't no marriages for you guys and gals!
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:32 am UTC

There's a concept called competence. If you don't have the ability to understand what you are signing, then the contract is void. Mentally ill is a very broad concept and doesn't necessarily mean you can't sign a contract.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8293
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:46 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm vehemently opposed to "poly" relationships for a very simple reason: there aren't enough women to go around.

...

Perhaps one of the greatest things that Christianity gave, or in a way took away, was the ban on divorce.

...

In Roman society, men would typically marry a young girl in her mid to late teens, the woman had a good chance of dying in childbirth, but if she survived there was still a good chance the man would divorce her once she developed wrinkles.


This is way off topic but I would like to bring this up again to say you are full of shit. You're sad women aren't flocking to you? Are you entitled to sex with women? No one promises you a monogamous relationship, why do you expect poly to mean "I get to fuck whoever I want"? That's not how human relationships work. The goal in poly relationships isn't to score the most, it's to have the ability to love more than one person at a time. Your idea that you need to be able to love/fuck enough people just to make sure you're not horny or that you meet a certain love quota goes completely against what poly relationships stand for.

As for your obnoxious rant about divorce and how you want to get back to the good ol' days when men could force women to remain in loveless relationships - that is an infuriating point of view that again stems from your idea that you deserve to receive attention from women, and they should cater to you even at the cost of their suffering. Have you been reading through IC communities or have you come up with these insanely offensive views on your own?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:57 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:IC communities

What are those?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8293
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:57 pm UTC

"involuntary celibate"
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby bantler » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:09 pm UTC

"Imminent Criminal"

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:21 pm UTC

Isn't Trump a believer in poly relationships? As many as he can get? That alone could turn me against the idea. Most men follow the verse in a song I once heard and quite a few women. If you can't be with the one you love, than love the one you're with. Had a nice melody too. Trump must have heard the same song

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:45 pm UTC

Projection much?

1) I stay the fuck away from the incels. Bunch of creepy whiny perverts.
1a) since this is the Trump thread, I'd like to bring up a story from Ivana. A reporter asked her "would you be married to Trump if he wasn't rich?" She replied "would he marry me if I wasn't beautiful?" It's kind of fair in its own way.
2) The Roman thing was one of those "fair for its day" sort of things. In roman days, women got nothing in the divorce, couldn't work or own property, and so we're forced into prostitution, begging, or worse. We don't live in Roman days anymore, and banning divorce would be a very bad thing, but back then the ban was very much a good thing.
3) No, it's not about being "entitled" to women. Sorry, women have brains and if they don't want to date you, that's your problem not theirs. Cracked had a great article about the whole thing, one that involved a story about a kid being hit by a car and bleeding out, and someone comes up and starts talking about how great a guy they are; that's great and all but if the kid is on the ground dying, that doesn't mean a shit, it's all about what you can do for people.
4) My hatred of polygyny actually comes from my grandfather through my father. My grandpa was far from stupid, he had not one but two sets of professional designations. He was married to my grandmother, and it turned out he had kids as old as my father with a second woman. When my grandma found out, she fainted. She spoke with him, basically said that as unhappy as she was, she was willing to put up with it, pretend it wasn't happening. He turned around, said he never really loved her, and left. Oh, he didn't marry the second woman, he broke up with her afterwards and married a third woman, and ended with him stealing from an escrow and getting disbarred because he was supporting a fourth. For me, polygynous men will ALWAYS be my grandfather. Oh, I'm sure there are women who dont mind or are even in to it, but again, those women will ALWAYS be my grandma, willing to put up with it as long as the man stays.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8293
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:15 pm UTC

What you're talking about is not a polyamorous relationship. It's cheating. Cheating is something that (generally) monogamous people do - there's not much reason to cheat if your partner is accepting of other partner. If that's your objection to poly relationships, then as I wrote - you have no idea what you're talking about.

As for the rest of it - you can ignore what you wrote in the original post, but that doesn't make you any more right.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:22 pm UTC

CorruptUser you know that polyamory is by definition about more-than-two-person relationships where everyone knows about everyone else right? Cheating spouses are not poly*.

*Meaning, in this context, polyamorous. There's lots of other closely related poly-words and they all have their own meanings but nobody ever shortens them to just "poly". Polygyny is any mating behavior involving multiple females, and polyandry is any mating behavior involving multiple males. Those are much broader categories than polyamory or even polygamy.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:34 pm UTC

Look, you want to have a relationship like Hollyhocks 8 dads on Bojack Horseman or that police woman from Beast with a Billion Backs, you do that. Don't think it should be illegal, just not encouraged. And I realize I sound like the typical guy on gay rights in the 90s.

I'm willing to change my mind on polyamory if you can show me credible citation that the total gender ratios of poly relationships are roughly equal. Because right now, OPP is the image in my mind of the typical poly relationship.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8293
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:39 pm UTC

What does it fucking matter if the ratios are close or not?? So what if it's deeply skewed towards one gender than the other? How does that make it better or worse? How is this an excuse to discrediting a legitimate way of life for adult consenting people to manage their lives?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:56 pm UTC

From Wikipedia
link
An additional problem is that many of these men are of low socioeconomic class with limited education. When there is a shortage of women in the marriage market, the women can "marry up", inevitably leaving the least desirable men with no marriage prospects. In many communities today, there are growing numbers of young men who come from lower classes who are marginalized because of lack of family prospects and the fact that they have little outlet for sexual energy. There is evidence that this situation will lead to increased levels of antisocial behavior and violence and will ultimately present a threat to the stability and security of society.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:48 am UTC

Sex bots will solve that problem.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:00 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:From Wikipedia
link
An additional problem is that many of these men are of low socioeconomic class with limited education. When there is a shortage of women in the marriage market, the women can "marry up", inevitably leaving the least desirable men with no marriage prospects. In many communities today, there are growing numbers of young men who come from lower classes who are marginalized because of lack of family prospects and the fact that they have little outlet for sexual energy. There is evidence that this situation will lead to increased levels of antisocial behavior and violence and will ultimately present a threat to the stability and security of society.
Dang, it's too late for me to save society by marrying a violent loser. Oops. Sorry, society. Marrying a smart guy who treats me and our kids with kindness and respect was awfully selfish of me.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:48 am UTC

Dang, it's too late for me to save society by marrying a violent loser. Oops. Sorry, society. Marrying a smart guy who treats me and our kids with kindness and respect was awfully selfish of me.
It really doesn't matter who you married, or why. What he quoted is a statistical truth. I'm happy for you that your husband is a good guy and treats you well. And not everybody who doesn't find a wife, is a violent loser.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:29 am UTC

I can't believe I wrote this and would like to delete it. I mean, I was drunk, but still.
Last edited by Sheikh al-Majaneen on Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5009
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:56 am UTC

Not that it constitutes an argument against polyamory either way, but I think the point about sex ratios is supposed to be similar to the one about crime and poverty. Being poor doesn't force you to be a criminal, and so isn't an excuse for criminal behavior, and being poor doesn't mean that you must be some lowlife inclined to crime in order to have become poor. But statistically, poverty increases crime. I think the idea is that a "poverty of sex" does likewise. Being unable to find a mate doesn't force you to be a criminal and isn't an an excuse for criminal behavior, and it's also not a sign that you must be some kind of criminal lowlife otherwise someone would want you. But statistically, loneliness increases crime.

I think really the underlying causation here is probably that unhappiness causes crime, and both poverty and loneliness cause unhappiness. People stop giving a fuck and lash out when it feels like the whole world is against them and doesn't care about them. People who might be perfectly well behaved if they were warm in a house with a full belly curled up with a loved one might end up violent criminals when they're cold and starving and alone on the streets. Their unhappiness isn't an excuse for the crime, but it's not really surprising that circumstances that make people unhappy make their behavior worse.

Whether anyone else is obligated to do anything to alleviate those circumstances is a different question.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:34 am UTC

Spoilered for OT:
Spoiler:
morriswalters wrote:
Dang, it's too late for me to save society by marrying a violent loser. Oops. Sorry, society. Marrying a smart guy who treats me and our kids with kindness and respect was awfully selfish of me.
It really doesn't matter who you married, or why. What he quoted is a statistical truth. I'm happy for you that your husband is a good guy and treats you well. And not everybody who doesn't find a wife, is a violent loser.


I agree that not all men who can't find mates turn antisocial and violent.

But that's what this quoted "statistical truth" strongly implies. And CorruptUser's previous posts, in conjunction with this one, express concern that polyamory will exacerbate the "shortage of women in the marriage market," and this "will ultimately present a threat to the stability and security of society."

In my view, the kind of person who becomes violent when unable to find a marriage partner would probably also have violent tendencies when married, too. That's not someone I would personally want to spend the rest of my life with. Would you?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:34 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Spoilered for OT:
Spoiler:
morriswalters wrote:
Dang, it's too late for me to save society by marrying a violent loser. Oops. Sorry, society. Marrying a smart guy who treats me and our kids with kindness and respect was awfully selfish of me.
It really doesn't matter who you married, or why. What he quoted is a statistical truth. I'm happy for you that your husband is a good guy and treats you well. And not everybody who doesn't find a wife, is a violent loser.


I agree that not all men who can't find mates turn antisocial and violent.

But that's what this quoted "statistical truth" strongly implies. And CorruptUser's previous posts, in conjunction with this one, express concern that polyamory will exacerbate the "shortage of women in the marriage market," and this "will ultimately present a threat to the stability and security of society."

In my view, the kind of person who becomes violent when unable to find a marriage partner would probably also have violent tendencies when married, too. That's not someone I would personally want to spend the rest of my life with. Would you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... ographics/
the security risks posed by China’s abnormal demographics must be taken into account when assessing China’s security. Fertility patterns, high birth-sex ratios and the resulting gender imbalance, when coupled with inequalities between rural and urban workers, have contributed to increases in societal instability characterized by a rise in violent crime, the numbers of secret societies and gangs, the levels of muscular nationalism, and prostitution and trafficking in women and children. These national effects, in turn, can have regional and international repercussions as they undermine national stability and security.


Back on topic: Trump tried to fire Mueller but his counsel threatened to resign until Trump back down. He also tried to replace Rosenstein as well, which makes his a weak Nixon. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/p ... ussia.html
Unfortunately, almost crimes by the president aren't the same as a crime, at least in the eyes of the GOP.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:24 am UTC

Still OT, but I can't shut up:
Spoiler:
I still don't think the answer to violence caused by a shortage of women in the "marriage market" (what a loathsome term!) is for polyamorous men to be penalized in some way--socially, if not legally--based on the principle that some men shouldn't be allowed to hog more than their fair share of a limited commodity, i.e. women, which makes some heterosexual men who would like to be monogamous become frustrated and destructive instead.

Which seemed to be CorruptUser's position, if I understood him correctly.

All this "supply and demand" economic talk is a useful metaphor for sexual activity and marriage up to a certain point, but there are important differences between women and widgets that shouldn't be overlooked. Widgets don't have any say about who they go home with, or under what terms. Women in free societies generally do.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:19 am UTC

More OT stuff (in reply to ObsessoMom, but quotes are hard on mobile)

Spoiler:
Edit: realised that any implied comparison of women to a commodity, fungible or not, is really objectifying. I got caught up in the argument and didn't realise what i was doing. I'm sorry.

Exactly. Put succinctly, women are not fungible, and any statistical model that treats them as if they are is going to have serious limitations. In particular the classic poly story is of significant unhappiness in monogamous relationships, possibly with a series of failed relationships, followed by finding that poly relationships are a much better fit. Because of this I have serious doubts that many people discouraged from polyamoury by social opprobrium are going to end up in stable monogamous relationships as an alternative.

There are also some very disturbing corollaries to the not-enough-women line of reasoning. If we're going to start deciding on the acceptability of ways of living based on it are we going to advocate discouraging women being single? Widows not remarrying? Asexuality? Lesbianism?

That discouragement is already happening in perhaps all these cases, but I would hope that we can agree that that's not a good thing.


On topic: only Trump could make Piers Morgan sound like a decent guy.
Last edited by Quercus on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:25 am UTC

Spoiler:
ObsessoMom wrote:In my view, the kind of person who becomes violent when unable to find a marriage partner would probably also have violent tendencies when married, too. That's not someone I would personally want to spend the rest of my life with. Would you?
No. But it misses the point. You are fed through various media the idea that the ideal state is one where you find a life partner and live happily ever after. In this case no one man is represented. No one goes psychotic because they don't get married. But you raise the general level of dissatisfaction among that population. If it helps to think about it, think of 16 year old boy men on the corner who see no future for themselves.

However you also live in a country where the gender balance is tipped towards women. Contrary to CorruptUsers evident belief, there are more women then men in American society. Or at least it appears to be true according to Wikipedia. However look at the first map in the article. And think about.

And it would be a mistake on everyone's part to assume the the people who are celibate through other than their own choice, are male.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:46 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Here's a good little tool for you, though I wish it had an option to combine college and non-college educated. Generally speaking, more single women with college degrees than men with college degrees, but without college degrees massively more single men than women until the older age brackets. And obviously, 65+ it's massively more women than men. In terms of violence and instability though, it's the younger men you have to worry about.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:50 pm UTC

oh my goodddddddddddddddddddddddddd
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:51 pm UTC

huh?


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests