Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

There's been plenty of experimentation of different family constructs throughout civilization, as well.  I read about a remote chinese (IIRC) region where there were no committed relationships between sexual partners, and children didn't know who their fathers were.  Women would invite men over for sex at completely their discretion, and multiple partners were the norm.  Children were cared for primarily by the mother's family, with uncles being the closest approximation to father figures.

I, heard about this the other day. You're not Mrs. Feldman are you?
 
Regardless, the problem is obvious if you say, live in a city. I don't KNOW those people, and the few I do don't like me and/or are crazy. Even if this was not the case, none would want to take the responsibility of me to any extent. It's simply not applicable to modern day life in the way the barterr system isn't.Also, The thing about the advance of the machines is, you need more info before you can be expected to be competently independant. You need to be older. 7 years isn't alot. I ask you send a 7 yr old to a apartment complex and tell them to raise him. That won't end well. At ALL.
 
Also, it sorta sounds like you think monogamy is a bad idea.

[SalmonGod]

I read about it 4 or 5 years ago.

Oh I know that not all of this stuff applies well to modern circumstances. though I'm sure we'd disagree on the details of why and how.

I don't necessarily think that monogamy is a bad idea.  I think that making a taboo out of anything that isn't monogamy is a bad idea.  In fact, I think that most social taboos tend to be detrimental, or any convention that universalizes expectations really.

[misko27]

One must remember, you are allowed to do as you like, as long as others aren't too affected. You'er rights end where other's begin is my rule.
 
And therefore, there are lines. If, for example, you were a nudist, you just can't do that, because other people may not want to see your naked body, and you do not have the right to force them.

[Scoops Novel]

From my mothers experiences, i can second that polygamy rarely works in practice. It doesn't help that it rarely works both ways either, at least so far. As for the whole abortion killing children thing, it depends on the reasons for doing so to me, but there's a limit to how many humans we can support regardless.

[Frumple]

From my mothers experiences, i can second that polygamy rarely works in practice. It doesn't help that it rarely works both ways either, at least so far.

*scratches head* From what I've seen, you could replace poly- with mono- in that sentence and still have an accurate statement (possibly even a more accurate one). Depends to a degree as to what heuristic you use to measure a relationship, though.

About the only remotely genuine argument I've seen related to opposition of polyamorous marriages has been legal. It's true that adding additional variables would make the legal aspect of marriage that much more complicated. It's a issue that could be solved, methinks, but it'd take a lot of work and further complicate an already annoyingly complicated process.

Now, t'me that just means it's probably a good idea to get around to reworking our legal concept of marriage, but eh.

[Scoops Novel]

When i say both ways, you don't see many woman having multiple husbands. Bear in mind, this was in Africa, and the jealousy and such like mentioned are too real. People do appear to deal better with monogamy.

[fqllve]

Just because something maybe isn't the best idea and could possibly cause all kinds of emotional stress isn't really solid grounds for making it illegal though. We allow people to make all kinds of worse decisions than polygamy.

You are right that multiple wives is more common than multiple husbands, though. But that might be a product of the societies that allow it rather than something universal. Frankly I think group marriages would be more common in the US than straight up polygamy if we allowed it.

[Frumple]

When i say both ways, you don't see many woman having multiple husbands. Bear in mind, this was in Africa, and the jealousy and such like mentioned are too real. People do appear to deal better with monogamy.

Eh. Relationships where one woman has multiple male partners isn't entirely uncommon from what I've seen (if not exactly common either, to be fair), though ones where everyone's aware of everyone else is... somewhat more rare (though given the taboo against polyamory in my country, that's not exactly surprising). And it does seem somewhat uncommon for that sort of relationship to become something longer term, but there's probably more social pressure involved there than anything inherent to the arrangement. A stable relationship is a stable relationship, regardless of the number of folks involved, and what makes a stable relationship has consistently varied wildly depending on the individuals involved and their situation.

Regardless, "dealing better with monogamy" doesn't exactly necessitate dealing well. Most monogamous relationships fail at some point, either amicably or otherwise. We don't seem to be making them taboo or illegal because of that, y'know?

[SalmonGod]

One must remember, you are allowed to do as you like, as long as others aren't too affected. You'er rights end where other's begin is my rule.
 
And therefore, there are lines. If, for example, you were a nudist, you just can't do that, because other people may not want to see your naked body, and you do not have the right to force them.

Sure, and I agree.  Few people wouldn't.  The real debate is just where the proper line is.  I think sometimes the majority culture's baseless emotional reactions to things outside their own egocentrically unquestioned assumptions can push the line too far over into personal freedoms.  Not always, but often enough.  And you can run into grey areas with any normally accepted taboo.  In the case of nudity, there has been plenty of debate over a person's responsibility to cover up their windows when nude in their own home.

[Sheb]

Actually I'm starting to think the state should just get out of the whole marriage business and let people deal with it. If you want to "marry" a woman, a man or your rubber duck, that's your problem, just find a priest that's willing to do it.


Okay, we probably still need some form of parenting union (if only so that a the kids can go with the remaining parents when one of them die).

[GlyphGryph]

One must remember, you are allowed to do as you like, as long as others aren't too affected. You'er rights end where other's begin is my rule.
And therefore, there are lines. If, for example, you were a nudist, you just can't do that, because other people may not want to see your naked body, and you do not have the right to force them.

I do not want to see your ugly face. I am glad we had this talk and you have agreed, thanks to your arbitrary definition of "rights", that you will never leave the house again and willingly inflict it's terror on myself and other people.

Everything we do effects other people! This is basically the most absurd standard ever invented. "You're rights end where others begin" is a pretty good rule but requires rights to get it started, we don't magically start with a right to everything ever. And there's plenty of good arguments that we DON'T have the right to control what images are displayed before our retinas, except in a few limited areas where we've decided otherwise. But that's not actually an argument for deciding otherwise in and of itself. Hell, nudism isn't even illegal around here (chunks of New England) and we seem to get along just fine. We don't require ugly people to wear bags on their head, we don't require aesthetic standards be upheld at all unless we have a vested interest in it (like property values and house appearances - as stupid as I think that is, at least there is a case for it)

[Sir Finkus]

Actually I'm starting to think the state should just get out of the whole marriage business and let people deal with it. If you want to "marry" a woman, a man or your rubber duck, that's your problem, just find a priest that's willing to do it.


Okay, we probably still need some form of parenting union (if only so that a the kids can go with the remaining parents when one of them die).

I don't really understand this either.  Why is it the state's business who you're sleeping with as long as they want to sleep with you?  You'd have to tweak a few things, but I can't think of anything massive.  As for parenting, if you're a biological parent, you have a "right to the child", just like you do now in most places.  Just ask any of my 23 children spawned out of wedlock.

[GlyphGryph]

Most states no longer have laws regarding who you are sleeping with.

Only whom you can form certain kinds of contracts with in a generally recognized way in an easy batch form with clear orders of fall through for certain rights and shared possession rules.

Sex isn't actually included anywhere in that.

And I don't think polymarriage will become legal anytime even remotely soon if only because it's hella complicated to map our current marriage setup onto it.

[Sir Finkus]

Most states no longer have laws regarding who you are sleeping with.

Only whom you can form certain kinds of contracts with in a generally recognized way in an easy batch form with clear orders of fall through for certain rights and shared possession rules.

Sex isn't actually included anywhere in that.

And I don't think polymarriage will become legal anytime even remotely soon if only because it's hella complicated to map our current marriage setup onto it.

I suppose I mispoke a bit.  I'm saying you keep all the legal stuff, and divorce (HAH!) it from the sex part.
If sex wasn't even a consideration, it'd just be a contract.  As it is, I couldn't say, marry my brother, even if I wanted us to have the same legal rights as a married couple.

[Nadaka]

Polyamory tends to work better asymmetrically. That is, you have a strongly committed pair, who have a one or more others who are recognized to have not as much significance. Things can still get messy of course, but the same thing happens in "monogamy" more often than not.