The next great step in civil rights?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Your number there is very, very wrong. Not only does it dramatically oversimplify "Male Dominated" , but given today's society where female dominated marriages or non-dominated marriages are extremely high - probably in the 40% range - given today's population, that's baloney.

40%? I'd accept that number if you're talking about marriages in (some) western societies since WWII. But the world? No way. Not even close.

Chinese society, for example, is an example of a complex situation. Marriages, by western standards are 'male dominated', but there is more than adequate power in the female side of the relationship. Just because men have the legal power doesn't mean they rule the marriage

Sorry, no. More legal rights trump everything. That's what domination is. I'm sure, in the antebellum South, there were Southerners who said with all seriousness that the slaves may not have had any rights, but they had a kind of power all their own. Their arguments would have been just as valid.

Here's one litmus test: in how many marriages, worldwide, is it legal for a man to rape his wife (or, alternatively, is the idea of rape-within-marriage considered a logical impossibility)? I don't know the answer myself, but I'd bet a good deal of money on the answer being over 80%. That number would have included the US as recently as 25 years ago, and I think still includes some countries in the EU.

In any event, there's no requirement for marriage to be linked to the goodness/badness of male domination. Your comparison is flawed (Not that I'm suggesting I care one bit whether polygamy/polyandry is going to tend towards one or the other, for me it's strictly legal/financial and nothing more, the rest is not to be considered)

I agree. It was Jon Miller who was linking marriage with egalitarianism and polygamy with domination. I was just pointing out the absurdity of the position.

[Jon Miller]

It isn't absurd. How can polygamy (with single male and multiple wives) not be domination, while traditional two person marriage has shown itself to adopt well to egalitarianism...

Generally, more egalitarian societies have not allowed polygamy.

JM

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How can polygamy (with single male and multiple wives) not be domination,

It isn't inherently domination.

[Jon Miller]

I am not saying that all polygamous relationships are male domination ones. In an example of one that isn't is this:
Person A really likes and seeks to please Person B
Person B really likes and seeks to please Person C
Person C really likes and seeks to please Person A

This would, as long as the three continued in that course, be a relatively stable, non-dominating polygamous relationship. Not as stable as a monogamous one, because there is more complication (3 body isntead of 2 body) and people tend to want their like/love/care returned.. (so at some point it would generally become unstable)

However, humans being bi sexed, and most being straight, what generally happens is something like this:

Female A likes and cares for Male A
Female B likes and cares for Male A
Female C likes and cares for Male A
Female D likes and cares for Male A
Male A likes and cares for Female D (who is the youngest and prettiest and newest)

Females A, B, and C are left out of the loop.

If you want something more inline of the first example, what generally happens in a 3body relationship is something like this:
Person A really likes and seeks to please Person C
Person B really likes and seeks to please Person C
Person C (often times male) really likes and seeks to please Person A but enjoys the extra attention from B

This isn't fair or stable.

Marriage is a commitment. Divorce is fairly difficult for a reason. It is because marriage exists to promote stable relationships. To introduce it to relationships which are inherently unstable (or gain their stability from (99.999+% of the time in human history) male dominance) removes the entire point of marriage (well, excluding children which most people seem to be in favor of now).

JM

[Nubclear]

Sure. Polygamy tends to create such a situation.
However, people should be allowed to, if they so choose, enter into such a relationship. It simply isn't the place of government to say "No, you don't *really* love each other, so we won't let you get married"

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


It isn't inherently domination.

In the traditional multiwife polygamous relationship, the wives are all married to the husband, but not to eachother.

Why would all those women agree to just be some peice of a guys harem unless he had some advantage over her.

We already have this enough in egalitarrian society (with dominance relating to money) without giving it the social sanction of marriage.

JM

[Nubclear]

What about gays who take multiple partners? Might their relationship be more egalitarian, and hence permissible?
What if the people decide to simply share the man/woman with each other, maybe because they are all really good friends?
What if the people really do love each other?
etc

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Sure. Polygamy tends to create such a situation.
However, people should be allowed to, if they so choose, enter into such a relationship. It simply isn't the place of government to say "No, you don't *really* love each other, so we won't let you get married"

Polygamy mainly only exists in situations where women are already being dominated. The government has the responsiblity to it's citizens (Those women) not to aid in their domination.

People can already agree to be second fiddle (and many do, becoming mistresses/etc). Doesn't mean it needs the social sanction of marriage.

What does marriage do? It does two things, it provides social sanction for a relationship (Stability for that relationship) and it provides financial support for the children of such a relationship (should the exist).

It isn't just some contract. Then a lot of women who allow themselves to be dominated will have a lot harder time changing their lot in life, when not only is their male partner dominating them, but the state is aiding sanction to that relationship.

Face it Tass, the mormons were smoking crack.

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

Polygamy mainly only exists in situations where women are already being dominated. The government has the responsiblity to it's citizens (Those women) not to aid in their domination.

Maybe thats because polygamy is illegal, and hence forced into the fringe where the power of the government to enforce the laws is often diminished?

What does marriage do? It does two things, it provides social sanction for a relationshi

Alright. Then let them get married in order to provide stability to their relationship.

Face it Tass, the mormons were smoking crack.

I won't argue with you here
But hypothetically, in a relationship where all members of the relationship truly consent, I see nothing wrong with allowing it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
What about gays who take multiple partners? Might their relationship be more egalitarian, and hence permissible?
What if the people decide to simply share the man/woman with each other, maybe because they are all really good friends?
What if the people really do love each other?
etc

The non Man with multi wives/girlfreinds/mistresses form a very small subset of all polygamous relationships.

Additionally, the 3body relationship is inherently less stable (doesn't take much logic to see this).

Sharing man/woman (Generally two women sharing a man) is generally the person being shared taking advantage of one or both of the people. There can be only one primary (And there is always a primary, even among people who preach free love, or say that everyone should love eachother equally, etc, there is always a primary (do a study of communes/etc of the past 200 years)). Humans are built to have a primary. Even those who seem to be inherently polyarmorous go from primary to primary.. and aren't equal opportunity.

Most people love lots of people, but in any situation where there is more than 2 people, people aren't being loved back as they would wish.

Even monogamous relatiopnsihps have problems with one member or the other not getting enough attention/etc (generally the woman, once more). If this is the problem in monogamous relationships, imagine how much more it is a problem in polygamous relationships (lots of guys don't give enough time to one wife, how many would give enough to multiple wives??).

And you still haven't yet addressed my central complaint. History has showed people are primarily monogamous (communes/etc which tried to eliminate monogamy always failed, generally as a direct result of the attempt to eliminate monogamy), if you allow polygamy the prime benificery will be male dominated polygamous relationships. If even 10% of people are in relationships of this nature, imagine the discontent among the young men.

And there is always (in any polygamous group where the young men aren't weeded down with war/etc) discontent amoung the young men. Once more, look at history.

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

Most people love lots of people, but in any situation where there is more than 2 people, people aren't being loved back as they would wish.

Then they are free to leave such a relationship.
The problem comes down to choice: IT may be the case that everything you say is true. That polygamy is exploitive and results in failed marriages and unhappiness and such, but ultimately if people are allowed to freely associate and are educated as to the nature of polygamous relationships, then they will have the autonomy to choose whether to enter into those relationships or not.
I have issues with the practical implimentation of many polygamous relationships, but when it comes to the general philosophy...As long as consent is maintained, people should be allowed to do what they want.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Alright. Then let them get married in order to provide stability to their relationship.

But in an truly egalitarrian society these relationships are inherently unstable. And providing sanction and support to these relationships is providing santion and support to the nonegalitarrian subsets in our society.

We aren't a society that has dealt with the issue of male dominance. Western culture is a lot farther along than some on this planet, but as part of our culture, we mingly freely with other cultures. As not even we have dealt with the issue completely (how many women are in politics, or running companies, or in other 'high' fields?) and others are worse, why should we give support to what will be primarily women's domination?

JM
(if you look at older (western) couples, you can still often see male dominance)
(you can also easily see it among the poor or conservative.. only among the liberal and middle class or wealthy are most women not being dominated by men)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Most people love lots of people, but in any situation where there is more than 2 people, people aren't being loved back as they would wish.

Then they are free to leave such a relationship.
The problem comes down to choice: IT may be the case that everything you say is true. That polygamy is exploitive and results in failed marriages and unhappiness and such, but ultimately if people are allowed to freely associate and are educated as to the nature of polygamous relationships, then they will have the autonomy to choose whether to enter into those relationships or not.
I have issues with the practical implimentation of many polygamous relationships, but when it comes to the general philosophy...As long as consent is maintained, people should be allowed to do what they want.

Marriage provides support and stability in a relationship. Part of it is that it isn't as easy to leave as with someone you pick up at the bar.. or even someone you shack up with.

Slavery is a choice too.. but the state doesn't sanction it.

JM

[Nubclear]

Slavery is a choice too.. but the state doesn't sanction it.

That is because, after you consent once to being a slave, your ability to consent or not consent is totally removed. If a person really wants to be a slave to another person....Again, it's fine as long as the people involved are willingly entering into such a relationship.

Part of it is that it isn't as easy to leave as with someone you pick up at the bar.. or even someone you shack up with.

Then change the laws to make it easier

[Jon Miller]

Marriage is a good thing. If you remove all the laws supporting marriage, you weaken it and thus weaken society.

Why weaken marriage? Gay marriage isn't doing so (much) which is why I support it.

JM